Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Promoters of the City of Westminster Bill [Lords]may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;

That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;

That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as were made by him in the last Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during any previous Session.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered again upon Thursday 29 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Peace Process

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of recent progress towards a peace settlement. [15018]

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with the Irish Prime Minister on the peace process. [15023]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Since I last answered questions here, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have held discussions with the leaders of all Northern Ireland political parties and their colleagues, in some instances

more than once. My right hon. Friend and I have been in close contact with the Taoiseach and I met the Irish Deputy Prime Minister on 1 and 7 February. Preparations are in hand for an Anglo-Irish summit.

Mr. Hain: Have British officials met Sinn Fein recently? What are the criteria by which Sinn Fein could meet Ministers in future?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Ministers will not meet Sinn Fein to discuss matters that are related to the peace process or political process unless and until a ceasefire has been credibly restored, as it should be forthwith. As for officials, to the best of my knowledge, there will be no meetings with officials.

Mr. Wareing: Does the Secretary of State agree that, despite the action of the IRA cowards in launching their bomb in London and killing innocent people, we owe it to the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland and throughout Ireland to continue the peace process? All suggestions should be considered. The Secretary of State should consider seriously the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that there should be a referendum in Northern Ireland. That would make it quite clear to those dreadful rascals and cowards that the overwhelming majority of people on both sides of the divide and in both parts of Ireland are absolutely in favour of the peace process and against the violence that has recurred.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I warmly agree that the peace process must continue. The peace process consists of all the work that is carried out to replace conflict with the opposite of conflict. It is essential that there should be all-party and inclusive negotiation, and ways of achieving that are currently under intensive discussion with the parties and between the Governments. One of those is certainly the referendum to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Hunter: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it is also the policy of the Irish Government that there should be no contact with Sinn Fein at ministerial level because Sinn Fein has not condemned outright the IRA's resumption of violence? That would be in accordance with paragraph 10 of the Downing street declaration, which enjoins that only parties committed to democratic principles and to peace can take part in negotiations.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend is certainly right. Paragraph 10 of the Downing street declaration stipulates that, in addition to what he has said,
parties have shown that they abide by the democratic process".
That is exactly why the position of the two Governments is the same.

Mr. Trimble: I appreciate the Government's desire to bring about serious talks in the near future, but should we not remember that over the past 17 months, Sinn Fein-IRA constantly refused to give any evidence that they were committed to exclusively peaceful means, and latterly have demonstrated in the clearest possible manner that they have no such commitment at all? Must that not affect our future policy? Must it not mean that


we shall require much more than merely a ceasefire before we can take seriously any protestation of peaceful intent from that quarter? Should there not be urgent representations to the Irish Government that they should observe their duty under international law not to allow their territory to be used as a base for attack on this part of the United Kingdom?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: As to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I do not think that the Irish Government need any reminder of what he has in mind. I am satisfied that the co-operation between the two police forces and the two Governments on security matters is very good.
As for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the key to participation in all-party negotiations is that all participants and all who claim to be participants should fulfil the stipulations of the Downing street declaration to which I have just referred. Plainly, to resort to violence at any time—let alone to go back to resorting to violence—is wholly incompatible with the stipulations. Any restoration of the ceasefire—that should occur straight away—must be credible.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Secretary of State agree that policing is very important to keeping the peace in Northern Ireland? Is he aware of what took place at the police authority last night, when an overwhelming vote of no confidence was passed in Mr. Cook, the chairman, and in Mr. Ryder, one of the members? It was passed because of Mr. Cook's breach of faith as chairman in revealing matters under discussion, and because Mr. Ryder said that the police authority was a performing poodle. There was an overwhelming vote of no confidence in them, but they have said that that does not matter to them and they will do what they like and stay on. Does the Secretary of State think that it would be in the best interests of the police authority that those two men leave the police authority?
Will the Secretary of State keep in mind the fact that men and women have risked their lives in Northern Ireland for being members of the police authority, and that the majority has a legitimate case to put and should be heeded?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that policing is extremely important to the people of Northern Ireland, especially in the present circumstances. It is a thousand pities that divisions are so manifest in the police authority. I look forward to meeting the chairman of the police authority at an early date, and I shall wish to hear about what has occurred and any proposals that he may have.

Mr. Hume: Does the Secretary of State agree that everybody in the House wants to see lasting stability in Northern Ireland; that the only way to bring that about—without threat to any section of our people—is by agreement; and that the way to do that is to get all parties to the table? Does he further agree that it should be the urgent priority of the Government to get all parties to the table as soon as possible? If anybody has to take risks to do that, they are worth taking if we are going to save human life.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have no difficulty in agreeing with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said.

One can identify an objective, but it is easier to identify and to express it than it is to achieve it. As I have twice said this afternoon, it is the immediate objective of the Government—as I know it is of the parties—to achieve inclusive, all-party negotiations, but they have to take place on the basis of confidence that the requirements of the Downing street declaration are fulfilled. That is the stumbling block at the moment.
I am grateful for the conversations that I have had with the hon. Gentleman, as with other party leaders. We must examine and continue to examine the situation. I share the same objective as the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I ask that attention be given to the background to the report in today's Evening Standard about the reaction in the United States to the fracture of the peace process? Would it be possible to explain, with the Irish Government, to some of the writers in American newspapers that, if they interviewed Families Against Intimidation and Terror or if they listened to the words of the family of the young man who was fatally involved in the Aldwych bomb, they would understand that the British and Irish Governments are trying to unlock the doors to all-party talks that could be held on conditions to which all parties can agree?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend is right. I pay tribute to the brave and moving words of the family of the young man. I think that there is an extraordinarily widely held misapprehension, not only in the United States, about the true character of the decision to return to violence. It is essential that we all explain the realities of the situation—not least that the British Government, far from dragging their feet, have had countless meetings with all concerned, including Sinn Fein, with a view to achieving the all-party negotiations that are the only route to a political settlement.

Ms Mowlam: Will the Secretary of State outline his views on the merits of Labour's proposals earlier this week for formal and intensive talks with the Northern Ireland parties and the two Governments, where appropriate, to reach widespread agreement on the way to bring the parties to full negotiation? That could include a combined referendum and an elective process to take the parties directly into talks, and chronologically fixed stages for the possible referendums and talks to begin. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that, as we believe, for Sinn Fein to take part in any negotiations in which Ministers are involved, it must be committed to a genuine ceasefire—as article 10 of the Downing street declaration states?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I warmly agree, particularly with the last part of the hon. Lady's remarks. It is impossible to suppose that Ministers in this Government—the Irish Government have made exactly the same point—will discuss matters with a party inextricably associated with people who have gone back to violence to achieve their political aims and who have turned their backs on the democratic process. A restored ceasefire Is absolutely essential. We have a shared policy and objective across the House—that there shall be inclusive negotiations on an all-party basis within the three-stranded structure, because that is the only way through to the political settlement that we all seek. The means to which the hon.


Lady referred are certainly each of them relevant to that process. They are not exclusively relevant—we have an open mind on any constructive ideas that are put forward in the process that we are continuing.

Inward Investment

Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the level of inward investment into Northern Ireland in 1995–96. [15019]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): Since April 1995, Northern Ireland has secured eight inward investment projects promoting 2,306 jobs, representing a total investment of £179 million.

Mr. Evans: One dividend of the ceasefire has been the ability of Northern Ireland to attract increasing levels of inward investment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a number of potential investors will be looking carefully at any progress towards not only a ceasefire but a permanent ceasefire in Northern Ireland before making any decisions about investing there? Would it not be in the best interests of all people in Northern Ireland to work together to secure the resumption of the ceasefire as quickly as possible?

Mr. Ancram: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I have made it clear from the Dispatch Box before that the best incentive for inward investment is a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. The Province has experienced troubles before but still managed during them to secure investment. The examples of Shorts, Ford and Du Pont during the troubles show that if the economic indicators in Northern Ireland are right, inward investment can be attracted. That is the case at the moment, and we look forward to continuing to promote inward investment in Northern Ireland.

Sir James Molyneaux: Will the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister in the other place consider convening a meeting of bankers, now that three more banks are coming to Northern Ireland, for the purpose of studying how they might best assist small industries in the Province? That is not to be confused with any proximity exercise.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that distinction. I will certainly put his idea to my noble Friend, Lady Denton, who I am sure will want to discuss the matter further with the right hon. Gentleman. We are all agreed that we must work to promote the economic prosperity of all parts of Northern Ireland. Whatever the men of violence may wish towards their communities, we want those communities to prosper, and we shall continue to work for that.

Rev. William McCrea: I welcome the number of inward investment jobs to which the Minister referred, but is he aware that there is disappointment west of the Province at the number of jobs that have gone in that direction? The Minister will be aware of the tragic announcement of the loss of 144 jobs at Unipork. What special measures can the Government take to ensure that jobs are directed to areas such as Cookstown?

Mr. Ancram: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that we have tried to attract inward investment to all parts of the Province, not just particular parts of it. We appreciate that there are difficulties in certain areas. He will be aware that there has been considerable inward investment in his constituency—for example, the new factory in Strabane that will result from the EU peace initiative. The investment of £800,000 in the factory is a good example of what we are trying to do. I heard what the hon. Gentleman said, and I shall pass it on to my noble Friend.

Mr. Illsley: Does the Minister agree that inward investment and the creation of jobs can play a part in defeating terrorism? Will the Government continue to encourage the business community, as we have done? Will the Government pledge to do all that they can to assist Bombardier in its discussions with Fokker—discussions that could not only protect existing jobs at Shorts but create extra jobs?

Mr. Ancram: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that inward investment, prosperity and the creation of jobs have a role to play in underpinning peace, which is why economic prosperity and the encouragement of it has always been a major part of the Government's economic and overall strategy in Northern Ireland.
As to Shorts, my noble Friend Lady Denton was recently in Holland and met the Dutch Government. The problems facing Fokker are commercial and need to be resolved on that basis. The Industrial Development Board is maintaining close contact with Shorts and Bombardier on development.

Mr. Atkins: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the most important sources of inward investment is tourism, and that part of the essential reason why the peace process must work is that tourists can be attracted into the Province in even greater numbers than before? Will he take note of the fact that the unceasing work that is done by him and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in trying to resolve the problems of the troubled Province goes down extremely well with all those who love that part of the United Kingdom, with an affection that is not confined just to Opposition and Conservative Members?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those remarks. I am sure that that gratitude is shared by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
I understand what my right hon. Friend is saying about the importance of tourism, but tourists are, by and large, adventurous. I was encouraged to hear that the staff on the stands of the Northern Ireland tourist board at Perth and Glasgow in recent days were inundated with support from people who came to talk to them.

Secondary School Pupils

Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of children of secondary school age are in (a) comprehensive schools (b) grant-maintained comprehensive schools (c) religious denominational voluntary aided schools (d) private schools, and (e) selective state grammar schools. [15020]

Mr. Ancram: Because of the different educational structures at secondary level in Northern Ireland compared with Great Britain, school types do not read across directly. The relevant Northern Ireland figures are that some 40 per cent. of secondary age pupils attend grammar schools, 58 per cent. secondary schools, just over 1 per cent. grant-maintained integrated schools and less than 1 per cent. independent schools.

Mr. Gapes: Is the Minister aware that the statistical bulletin produced by the Department of Education in Northern Ireland refers to the unacceptable number of poorly qualified or unqualified school leavers coming out of schools in Northern Ireland? What do the Government plan to do to remedy that?

Mr. Ancram: That has been a matter of concern to me as Education Minister during the time that I have held that office. It was for that reason that I introduced the raising school standards initiative, which is directly targeted at dealing with that problem. In Northern Ireland, only 4 per cent. of pupils fail to achieve any GCSEs compared with 8 per cent. in England. Although there is still more to be done, our policies in that area are working.

Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that answer and the people of Northern Ireland on their good fortune—which many in England would like to share—in having so many grammar school places. Does not the main hope for the future in Northern Ireland lie in the growth of non-denominational education, as denominational schools can merely aggravate the religious divide?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the first part of his question. I know that the attraction of selective education is understood not only by Conservative Members but by one or two Opposition Members, who like to take advantage of it.
Education generally in Northern Ireland—not only the selective system—produces good results. It is worth remembering that 87 per cent. of pupils in Northern Ireland achieve two A-levels as against 81 per cent. in England. In addition, 51 per cent. of pupils in Northern Ireland achieve five good GCSEs as opposed to 44 per cent. in England.
We have always made it clear that we shall promote and encourage integrated education, but it must be based on parental demand and not on coercion.

Dr. Hendron: I would appreciate it if, at some time, the Secretary of State or the Minister would make a statement about the percentage of school children in my constituency of Belfast, West who have been able to attend a secondary school, grammar school or some school like that.
When will the Secretary of State be in a position to make an announcement about the proposal of the University of Ulster to have a campus at Springvale? I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that there is truly massive support throughout both communities in west Belfast and north Belfast, and far beyond, for such a campus.

Mr. Ancram: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I shall be happy to meet him to discuss the situation and to try to provide him with some of the information that he seeks.
As for the Springvale campus, the Government have received an economic evaluation, which we shall be examining closely before coming to a final decision.

Planning Applications

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial resources he has allocated to fund organisations which assist community groups to make submissions on planning issues. [15021]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): Community technical aid was established in 1980 to provide advocacy and technical support to community organisations on planning issues. In 1995–96, the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment provided £110,000 to CTA.

Mr. McAvoy:: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. As he knows, however, there is a democratic deficit within the planning process in Northern Ireland, which has been the position for some years. Bearing that in mind, surely he will agree that it is essential that there is a proper balance within the decision-making planning process so that organisations such as community technical aid are fully funded to ensure that community groups are properly trained so that they are able to take on the system.

Mr. Moss: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Department has recently had CTA's work evaluated by independent consultants. A management consultant has just finished a six-months' assignment with CTA, during which it was assisted to streamline the organisation and refocus activities in its main areas of business. I am happy to reiterate what I said to the Select Committee that examines planning issues. If the organisation feels that it needs more resources, I shall consider any approach that is made to me on that basis.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend explain why the planning process in Northern Ireland cannot be carried out by properly elected local government? Will he give to the constitutional nationalists a sense of purpose and a proper role in the community of Ulster, and to a great extent stop their aspiration for a united Ireland, if necessary by force?

Mr. Moss: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I have some sympathy with the sentiments that lie behind it. I have visited every district council in Northern Ireland over the past year, and there is a level of frustration among elected councillors because of their lack of involvement in the planning process. However, the future reorganisation of local government in the Province is really a matter for discussion between my right hon. and hon. Friends and the elected Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies, in terms of future political development.

Mr. Dowd: If there is to be some movement away from the highly centralised development control system in Northern Ireland, will the Minister consider the scope for more local determination? To retain confidence, will he consider using his Department for appeals by both applicants and objectors?

Mr. Moss: We are considering listening to the advice of district councils as to how we can involve them more in the process of planning procedures. As for the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, there is no procedure in Great Britain, as a whole, to make appeals on the basis for which he asks. Until such changes are made here, the process in Northern Ireland must continue as it is.

Coronary Heart Disease

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in reducing the incidence of coronary heart disease in the Province. [15022]

Mr. Moss: Over the past 10 years, premature deaths from coronary heart disease in Northern Ireland have fallen by 33 per cent.

Mr. Coombs: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, between 1985 and 1994, the number of deaths from premature coronary heart disease fell from 1,056 to 703? Does he agree that much of the credit for that should go to the change of heart programme, which was set up in 1986 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)? Nevertheless, does my hon. Friend recognise that the level of heart disease in Northern Ireland remains among the highest in the world? What further plans does he have to research the reasons for that high incidence of heart disease and to promote better dietary and other habits to reduce those figures further still?

Mr. Moss: As my hon. Friend says, that reduction is one of the great achievements of the health service in Northern Ireland over the past decade and more. The change of heart programme was established in 1986 and set a target of a 15 per cent. reduction, which we achieved within five years. We have now set more challenging targets, of about a 40 per cent. reduction by the turn of the century. As for attacking the problem of a regional health strategy for health and social services, we have set a target to increase the number of cardiac operations in Northern Ireland by about 1,200 in the coming years. We have reached that target in the past two years, and we hope to do more in the future.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that a change in diet and habits is needed—rather than the change of heart to which he referred in relation to surgical operations—which has been achieved by the Chest, Heart and Stroke Association's campaign? Is it not wrong for advertisers, particularly tobacco advertisers, to try to lure children into that habit, which has an adverse effect on children's hearts?

Mr. Moss: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments, and I acknowledge the work that has been done by the society that he mentioned. The change of heart programme tackled the main risk factors of smoking, raised blood pressure, cholesterol and physical inactivity. The Health Promotion Agency in Northern Ireland manages the change of heart programme and spends about one third of its £1.3 million budget on resources to tackle the risk factors associated with heart disease. The agency's efforts are complemented locally by the health

promotion work of the health and social services boards and trusts and by general practitioners. New Province-wide strategies on food, nutrition and physical activity are being developed.

Mr. McGrady: Despite the good news about trends that the Minister has delivered to the House, is he aware of the very alarming instruction issued by the director of the Royal Victoria hospital to consultant cardiac surgeons that they should not perform any further cardiac surgery except in cases of extreme emergency or when patients are referred to them by a fundholding general practitioner in the entire area of the Eastern and Northern health board? Is that not very discriminatory, and what action does he intend to take to ensure that my constituents, particularly those with cardiac conditions, get an equal deal in health care?

Mr. Moss: I am not aware of the details of the hon. Gentleman's question, but, if he will write to me, I shall certainly look into the matter for him. I repeat that the regional strategy sets a target for increasing the number of cardiac operations in Northern Ireland from only 700 in 1990 to 1,100 by 1993. That target has since increased. We have appointed two additional cardiac surgeons at the Royal Victoria hospital in the past three years, and we intend to tackle the problem head on in the future.

Mr. Fabricant: Has my hon. Friend seen the research work undertaken by Professor Alan Howard of Cambridge university that states that drinking a glass of red wine a day helps to alleviate heart disease? Will he encourage all the excellent hostelries throughout Northern Ireland—in Belfast and Bangor—many of which I am personally familiar with, to sell not only the excellent stout produced in the island of Ireland but red wine?

Mr. Moss: My hon. Friend will have to wait until the new licensing laws are announced, which I hope to do in the near future.

Elections

Mr. Robert McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what circumstances the Government of the United Kingdom seek the prior consent of the Republic of Ireland to execute decisions relating to elections within the United Kingdom. [15024]

Sir Patrick Mayhew: There are no such circumstances, as the execution of such decisions would fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. McCartney: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the pique expressed by the Government of the Republic about the alleged failure of Her Majesty's Government to consult them on the issue of elections in Northern Ireland seems to reveal a claim to a role in Northern Ireland's affairs under the 1985 agreement that goes well beyond the consultative? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in November 1985, on the day after the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, the then Taoiseach of the Republic told Members of the Dail Eireann that the powers granted to the Republic went far


beyond the consultative and stopped short of being full executive powers only because of the notional idea or concept of sovereignty?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not think that I shall follow the hon. and learned Gentleman down the paths that his question took; nor do I think it profitable to explore what was undoubtedly a period of disagreement that arose out of the Government's response to the Mitchell report. Both Governments remain united in seeking to help the people of Northern Ireland to achieve a comprehensive political settlement. They also remain united on the means by which that can be achieved: a process of inclusive all-party negotiations. I would prefer to concentrate on that rather than on the occasional ups and downs that occur in such a close relationship.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that, whatever the Republic of Ireland's views, they are not important in the sense of what the House will and cannot do? What is important is that the IRA should never get the message that it can intimidate Her Majesty's Government or the House into not holding elections in Northern Ireland.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It has been a matter of great importance that the two Governments should stand side by side in their response to the evil and totally unjustified return to violence that has been carried out by people who have turned their backs on democracy.

Mr. John D. Taylor: As most people in Northern Ireland—with the exception of Sinn Fein—agree with the principle of consent, does the Secretary of State recall that the large majority of people in Northern Ireland oppose the Anglo-Irish Agreement and that all hon. Members on the Ulster Unionist Benches remain implacably opposed to it? Does he therefore understand clearly that any statement by the Government on the future political process in Northern Ireland that implicitly involves the Anglo-Irish Agreement cannot succeed?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will recall that part of the purpose of the negotiations, about which we have been talking at length this afternoon, is to see whether a new and more widely accepted agreement between the two Governments can be found. That was part of the process of the three-stranded talks in 1991–92 and it remains something which, by definition, would be desirable.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend also accept that a great many people in Northern Ireland support political parties that are not represented in the House? Does he agree that elections that would lead directly to all-party talks would enable their concerns and interests to be given a voice in those all-party talks?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend raises a very important matter. It is important to remember that, as was observed by Senator Mitchell in his report, a process of elections would need to be widely accepted. One of the reasons why it seems to offer a means of carrying forward

the confidence that is needed is that it would enable Northern Ireland's people to make their views known in the new circumstances.

Mr. Mallon: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the only parties that refused to enter all-party negotiations were the two Unionist parties and that the Prime Minister's stated reason for proposing an elective process was to get those parties directly and immediately into all-party negotiations? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that yesterday the Unionist parties made it clear that, even after an elective process, they would not go directly and immediately into all-party negotiations? Why does the Prime Minister foolishly and stubbornly pursue a policy that cannot achieve his own stated objective?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have always found that the Unionist parties, like every other party represented in the House, are well capable of speaking for themselves. On the whole, it is wiser to let them do so—that is true of all parties in the House. Rather than go down a historical road, especially one that is conditioned by the premises of the hon. Gentleman's question, I would prefer to concentrate on what unites parties in the House, particularly those that take a close interest in Northern Ireland affairs: the need to establish an inclusive process of talks, at which are represented all the parties that fulfil the stipulations of paragraph 10 of the Downing Street declaration. That means in particular those that have established that they are wholly committed to democratic principles. That is what unites us all. We must now set much of the past behind us and concentrate on the means by which that objective can be achieved.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Is the Secretary of State aware that, over the past few days, Government spin doctors have been briefing the press to the effect that he and the Prime Minister do not view as mutually exclusive the proposal for an elected convention put forward by my party, the referendum proposal put forward by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the proximity talks proposal being put forward by the Government of the Irish Republic? Is that the direction in which the Government are leaning?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: If any spin doctors—I have never met one—have been spinning in the direction of the idea that all these proposals are put forward in good faith as offering a possible way forward and that all are relevant to achieving the objective that we share, I am glad, and I hope that they will go on spinning, because it happens to be true. In the process of the intensive talks that are going on, we must try to rough-hew an agreed way forward. There are good prospects of doing so.

Mr. Worthington: If there is general support for elections, as the Secretary of State said, does he agree that all parties that are committed to exclusively peaceful methods should know at the time of the elections when, where and how all-party talks should take place?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: There is no doubt that nationalists are anxious that all-party negotiations of an inclusive type are started as soon as possible. There is nothing special about them—I think everybody is


concerned about that. We cannot identify a date as being the one with certainty on which negotiations will start. We can, however—this is useful—do what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has done: set out a timetable by which it seems likely that the House would approve the necessary legislation and by which thereafter we could, in a short space of time, measured in days rather than weeks, enter the negotiations that we all seek.

Mr. Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effect of elections on the level of violence in Northern Ireland since 1971. [15025]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): There does not appear to be any direct correlation between elections and levels of violence in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Simpson: Is the Minister aware of figures provided for me by the Library, tracing the past 25 years? They show not only that there is no correlation between election years and positive peace-building processes but that election years have invariably produced more deaths, injuries, explosions and firearms caches, which have bucked the trend of decreasing violence. Does the Minister accept that wider evidence suggests that elections follow the conclusion of all-party peace talks rather than their pre-emption? Is that not where the Government should be starting right now?

Sir John Wheeler: I cannot comment on the detail of the figures given by the hon. Gentleman. What I can say is that, in the event of elections, the Royal Ulster Constabulary will produce a plan to protect the public who wish to participate in them.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

United Nations

Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 30 January, Official Report, column 772, what proposals he has made for the abolition of United Nations bodies. [15047]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I believe in an effective United Nations. Eliminating waste must be part of that. As I advised the hon. Gentleman recently, that includes, where necessary, a long-term look at the functions and programmes that have outlived their usefulness.

Dr. Godman: Before any such bodies can be abolished, the United Nations must contend with the election of a new Secretary-General. Why are the Government advocating the re-election of Dr. Boutros Ghali so assiduously? Should not the Prime Minister and other leaders be campaigning for a candidate of the stature of, say, President Mary Robinson of the Irish Republic, or some other stateswoman or statesman of equal standing? As for Dr. Boutros Ghali, should we not be saying cheerio to the old fellow?

The Prime Minister: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government do not indicate how they will vote on these occasions, and I do not propose to do so now. What I think most important is that the United Nations is efficient, and efficiently run. It is distressing to note that a large number of United Nations bodies have patently outlived their usefulness. They have no proper functions to perform either now or in the future, and they should be removed.

Engagements

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 February. [15048]

The Prime Minister: This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Bruce: Can the Prime Minister explain to the House—and, indeed, to the public—why, when the reputation of members of his Cabinet is at stake and when the House is to debate a report that he personally commissioned, he is denying the House a substantive motion on which to vote and, moreover, is not prepared to come here and take part in the debate?

The Prime Minister: I am here every Tuesday and Thursday to answer questions, and I do answer those questions.

Mr. Mackinlay: Where is the right hon. Gentleman on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays?

The Prime Minister: If hon. Members wish to have Prime Minister's Questions on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, I am not entirely sure that they will carry the whole House with them.
The House will be able to vote on Monday's motion, and it is very likely that it will do so. If the main charges against the Government had been proved, of course it would have been entirely proper for me to be here to defend that, but they were not proved. Sir Richard has agreed that there was no conspiracy, no cover-up. It is entirely proper that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, to whom the report was addressed, should lead for the Government, and he will do so.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is simply unacceptable that an unelected foreign court should put its judgment on British policy before that of a British Home Secretary? If ultimately we have to follow the consequences of backing British opinion and contemplate leaving the European Court of Justice at the expense of pandering to the European liberal intelligentsia, would that not be very much the lesser of two evils?

The Prime Minister: It is of course extremely disappointing—and to many hon. Members extremely irritating—that the European Court of Human Rights has found against the Government on a procedure that has been used in this country for very many years. My right


hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is looking very carefully at the judgment to see precisely what effect it has. I have said before that the Government are not satisfied with some of the rulings made by the European Court of Human Rights and we are pursuing with other members of the Council of Europe precisely what might be done to improve what we believe is a flawed system.

Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that there are two questions on the Scott report: first, was Parliament misled and, secondly, were Ministers to blame? On the first, the Chancellor has been forced to issue an apology today for a Treasury press release and has admitted that Scott found that Parliament was misled. Does the Prime Minister agree with that? Can we have a clear answer? Does he accept that Scott found that Parliament was misled?

The Prime Minister: There were two questions, of course, that Sir Richard Scott was asked to investigate, and he investigated both those and other matters as well. The two principal points that Sir Richard was asked to determine were, first, whether Saddam Hussein was illegally supplied with arms—as charged by right hon. and hon. Opposition Members—and he found that he was not; and, secondly, whether there was a conspiracy to pervert justice by an improper use of public interest immunity certificates and, again, he found that there was not.
On whether Parliament was misled, as I have said to the right hon. Gentleman before, none of my right hon. Friends intentionally misled Parliament. They did not. If the right hon. Gentleman had read the Scott report carefully, he would know what Sir Richard had to say about that. He would know that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was cleared of duplicitous intent and that he was not accused of deliberately misleading Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman knows that and I am surprised that he keeps pursuing a point that he knows is wrong.

Mr. Blair: We will come to the question of blame, Ministers deliberately withholding information from Parliament in breach of rules of accountability, not telling the truth when they were in a position to know so—all of which Sir Richard found. Can I have it clearly on the record whether the Prime Minister, leaving aside the question of intention, to which we will come, accepts that Parliament was misled—yes or no?

The Prime Minister: I answered that question on Tuesday. I have answered that question again today and I have made it absolutely clear. There was no intention whatever to mislead Parliament—nor did my right hon. Friends do that on any occasion of which I am aware.

Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister is not prepared to answer the basic question. How has he reached the position of commissioning the report to get at the truth, and three years and millions of pounds later walking away from the findings that he does not like? Just like Nolan, just like Greenbury—it is a textbook definition of Majorism. Can the Prime Minister please tell us whether he accepts the key findings, first, that Parliament was misled and, secondly, that Ministers deliberately withheld information in breach of the rules of ministerial

accountability? If he cannot answer them, we will conclude that he is unable and his Government are unable to distinguish between what is true and what is false.

The Prime Minister: That was not so much a sound bite as a sound nibble. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there was no deceit whatever, and that was apparent from the report. I will tell the House why the right hon. Gentleman keeps moving to these points. He knows that on the substantive issues Sir Richard found in the Government's favour. He knows that on the issues that the inquiry was set up to consider, the Government were found to have behaved entirely properly. That is why the right hon. Gentleman changes the ground rules.
On the central issues of the Scott report—the issues that have led the Opposition to blackguard the Government repeatedly over the past three years—Sir Richard found in the Government's favour. The right hon. Gentleman will scrabble on wherever he can to change what he said before and to hide what he said before, and to try to impute deceit where there was none.

Dr. Spink: Why are non-wage labour costs in the UK half those of our major competitors? Why is our take-home pay higher than that of our major competitors and why is our unemployment lower? Is it a result of the Government's policies, which are making us the enterprise centre of Europe?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this country's favourable economic position. He is equally right to draw attention to the fact that, if we accepted the social costs, through the social chapter as it is now and the social chapter as it would be if any British Government were foolish enough to join it, we would find the same extra costs, the same lack of competitiveness and the same increase in unemployment as we have seen in so many of our competitor countries across Europe. We have no intention of making those mistakes. No party that is genuinely concerned about employment should contemplate such policies, because they will keep people out of work who are out of work at present and they will put out of work people who are in work at present.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 February. [15049]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. O'Brien: Returning to the Scott report—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Conservative Members suggest that it is boring. It is not boring in my constituency, which is just down the road from Matrix Churchill. Now let the Prime Minister try to give us a straight answer to a straight question. Does he accept the finding of the Scott report that the Attorney-General was personally at fault for failing to pass on the view of the Deputy Prime Minister that the documents for which he claimed public interest immunity should be shown to the defence?

The Prime Minister: The Attorney-General made it clear to the House on Monday that he took specific steps to ensure, through my right hon. Friend's special PII certificate, that the judge was alerted to the need for


special care. The judge exercised his discretion, precisely as the Attorney-General had said he would, and ordered the disclosure of the relevant papers to the defence. The hon. Gentleman should stop twisting and misinterpreting what happened.

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 February. [15050]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Carrington: Does the Prime Minister agree that, with high unemployment in this country and even higher unemployment in our European partner countries, we need policies that will lift the burden off industry to enable it to create jobs? Whatever the wriggling, the Labour party's support for the social chapter and the minimum wage blows apart its claim to be able to create jobs. All it would do is tax jobs.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about that. [Interruption.] I said "my hon. Friend". Fond though I am of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), I do not regard him as my right hon. Friend in parliamentary terms—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman seeks repeatedly to interrupt Prime Minister's Question Time. He reminds me that it was he who said that, after 15 years of deregulation, he did not see much investment flooding in. He should go to Sedgefield,

Livingston and all sorts of other places throughout the country to see the inward investment that has been a result of this Government's policy. It has provided jobs for people whom the right hon. Gentleman's policies would leave on the scrap heap for ever.

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 February. [15051]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McAvoy: The Prime Minister keeps on repeating that the Scott report has cleared his Government. If that is the case, why is he so scared of allowing the House a vote on the future of the two Ministers concerned? What is he scared of?

The Prime Minister: The House will have its opportunity to debate and to vote on the motion on Monday. I have indicated my confidence in both Ministers. I have indicated that, on the two substantive matters that caused me to set up the Scott report, Sir Richard has cleared the Government of any malpractice whatsoever. I have also said before, and I repeat it again now, that what happened did bring out shortcomings in some areas. I said that last week and I repeat it again today. We will take those shortcomings very seriously. We are examining what Sir Richard had to say and we will bring before the House speedily our proposed measures to remedy those things that need changing.

Oil Tanker (Milford Haven)

The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): On Monday, I made a statement to the House on the Sea Empress. In it, I referred to the difficulties of such operations and said that the resolution of the incident would take time. I stressed that the weather would remain the crucial factor in determining progress. I am now informing the House of the steps that have been taken since Monday and the further steps that the Government propose to take thoroughly to assess the incident and its consequences, and to establish what lessons should be learned and what further action needs to be taken.
Since my earlier statement, the elements have posed considerable dangers and difficulties for the salvors engaged by the ship's owners. Difficulties with wind and tide have led to the ship regrounding on a number of occasions and to the loss of additional and significant amounts of oil. Despite those difficulties, immense efforts have been made by the salvors to try to stabilise the ship to prevent further loss of oil and to remove the oil still on board.
Where oil has escaped, my Department's marine pollution control unit's aircraft have sprayed it with dispersants. At the same time, between 150 and 160 people, organised by the MCPU and supervised by qualified beachmasters, have been working to clean up oil that has been washed ashore. There has been no shortage of manpower or resources: all the equipment that could physically be brought on to the beaches has been made available. The local and harbour authorities and voluntary bodies have also been working hard to protect the environment.
As the House knows, the ship was successfully refloated last night and towed to a jetty in Milford Haven, where it is now protected by a boom. There was some further escape of oil from the vessel during those operations. It is proposed to unload the vessel into smaller tankers that would be brought aside. That operation needs to be carefully planned and prepared, and is likely to take some days. Every effort will be made to prevent any further discharges from the ship.
We are not yet in a position to confirm precisely the amount of the ship's cargo that remains on board. Indications are that up to half the cargo, some 65,000 tonnes, has been spilt. Of this light crude, around a quarter will have evaporated. However, there is considerable pollution at sea and on parts of the coastline. Much of the pollution at sea is in the form of sheens, but there are also patches of thicker oil. When it is appropriate to do so, those thicker patches are being sprayed with dispersants by aircraft.
Three oil recovery vessels are also currently operating at sea, and two further oil recovery vessels are proceeding to the area. Oil recovery operations are also continuing within Milford Haven.
There is pollution on parts of the coastline. The clean-up techniques used will vary between sites, and are decided in full consultation with environmental experts and interests, under the overall control of a joint response centre established by the MPCU and the harbour and local authorities in Milford Haven. The clean-up operations are being undertaken by local authority and oil company personnel and by specialist contractors.
Every assistance is being given to the voluntary organisations that are dealing with oiled sea birds. I pay tribute to those organisations for all the valuable work that they are doing.
The House will want to know what the Government will do to find out, first, the causes of the accident, secondly, the lessons that can be learned from the way in which the salvage operation was conducted, and, finally, the extent of environmental damage and the effectiveness of the response and clean-up operations.
First, as I told the House on Monday, the marine accident investigation branch has already initiated an inquiry into the causes of the grounding of the Sea Empress. MAIB inspectors have been on the scene since Friday, and have made good progress. The chief inspector of marine accidents will provide me with a full report, which will be published. I am sure that the MAIB is the right body to do that. That is the purpose for which it was set up under an Act of Parliament.
We need a thorough professional examination of what went wrong, so that we can learn whatever lessons there are to learn for the design, operation, management and pilotage of tankers. MAIB, like the parallel body for the investigation of air accidents, the air accident investigation branch, has the highest reputation for professionalism and integrity. I assure the House that, in this case, as in others, its investigation and its report will be independent.
Secondly, I shall explain the conduct of the salvage operation. Salvage operations can only be undertaken by skilled, experienced professionals, and the consortium engaged by the ship's owners includes one of the world's leading salvage firms. The responsibility for the conduct of the salvage operation rests with the salvors. Although their proposals have to be considered and agreed both by the port authority and by the marine pollution control unit, responsibility for their initiation and execution rests with them. The salvors had to determine the resources needed and to ensure that they were to hand.
I reiterate my unstinting admiration—which I am sure the whole House shares—for the tireless work that the teams of salvors, together with members of the emergency services, military and civilian helicopter crews, the ship's crew, Admiralty salvage experts, members of the MPCU and all those involved, have put into the salvage operation since the accident, often in diabolical conditions of danger, gales, freezing temperatures and acute physical discomfort. It is all too easy to criticise their efforts from the comfort of the armchair, the studio or the news room.
None the less, for all their herculean efforts, the vessel remained stranded for five days, and about 65,000 tonnes of oil has been spilt. I know that the House shares my disappointment and frustration at the repeated failures of the earlier salvage attempts, and my deep concern at the environmental consequences. We must find out why that happened, and whether anything more might be done to make a future salvage operation more likely to succeed.
To that end, I have asked the chief inspector of marine accidents to extend the scope of the current investigation to include the salvage operations. That will include consideration of the planning and execution of the operation, and examination of the contingency plans that were made and of the input and supervision of the operation by the shipowner, his insurers, the harbour authority and the marine pollution control unit.


The chief inspector has told me that he is appointing independent consultants to help with that part of his inquiry. I look to all those involved to co-operate fully with that aspect of the investigation. I shall publish the chief inspector's report.
Thirdly, it is also essential that we undertake rigorous scientific assessments of the damage that has been caused on land and at sea, and of the effectiveness of the clean-up operations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales announced yesterday that up to £250,000 is being made available for a comprehensive environmental assessment and a long-term monitoring programme in the area affected by the spill. That work will start immediately, and will be undertaken by the Countryside Council for Wales, acting in partnership with other statutory agencies and voluntary environmental groups.
It is intended to assess the impact of the spillage on both coastal and marine habitats. It is also intended to assess the effect of dispersing the oil, both naturally and by chemicals, on the concentrations of flora and fauna, including sea birds, sea ducks and marine mammals. This will include a full assessment of the damage done to the Skomer marine nature reserve and Milford Haven waterway.
The levels of oil pollution in the sea water and coastal sediments will be measured, and changes monitored, as will the long-term recovery of the biological systems in general. The immediate need is to minimise, to the extent that is possible, the environmental effects of the spill. However, we must not lose sight of the need to learn for the future.
This assessment by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be complemented by work to be done by MAFF, which is arranging for diversion of the research vessel Corystes from its current research work to a new mission of fishing and environmental monitoring. The Corystes will be collecting samples of fish and shellfish for analysis of residues of oil. This will supplement the present and on-going programmes of monitoring and will enable us to determine what restrictions are necessary, and to say when fishing can safely resume. In the meantime, the voluntary action ensures that fish on the market remain safe to eat.
I also wish to express our appreciation of the work of those involved in the clean-up operation, who are often working in exposed or unpleasant conditions. None the less, we will also need to assess the pollution response and clean-up operations. At this moment, it is impossible to estimate how extensive these operations are likely to be.
Operations at sea are the responsibility of the marine pollution control unit, while operations on shore fall primarily to the local authorities, assisted by the MPCU and, in this case, by the oil industry. In consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, I propose to appoint an independent assessor to undertake a rigorous examination of the response, the clean-up procedures and the techniques employed following the Sea Empress incident.
As the report of the ecological steering group established after the Braer recommended, it is essential that these examinations of the environmental impact and of the clean-up operations are brought together and published in a form that will provide clear guidance for the future. This will be done. We believe that the

measures necessary to reduce the risk of pollution were clearly set out in Lord Donaldson's report "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas".
When we have completed the investigation and the assessments that I have referred to in this statement, we will be in a position to assess the lessons on this particular spill and set them in the context of Lord Donaldson's findings and recommendations, the vast majority of which we have accepted. The Government are determined to find out exactly what happened, to publish the results, and to learn and apply the lessons. The House would expect no less.

Ms Clare Short: I join the Government in paying tribute to the bravery of the people involved in the salvage operation. Whatever mistakes may have been made, hon. Members will wish to know that the coastguards praised the amazing bravery of the salvors, and said that the Dutch in particular had risked life and limb to save the Sea Empress and to prevent a disaster. I am sure that we all wish to send a message of thanks to all concerned.
I appeal to the Government to reconsider their decision and to accept that an inquiry by the Department of Transport's marine accident investigation branch is not an adequate response to this disaster. One of the questions that has to be asked is: did Ministers fail to implement the Donaldson report recommendations to ensure that adequate tugs were available? Surely the Secretary of State for Transport can see that it is not credible that a unit of his Department could properly investigate the possible failings of its Ministers.
I also put it to the Secretary of State that the second question is, did Ministers fail to use their powers to ensure the salvage operation was properly conducted? It now seems clear that large numbers of extra tugs were offered and refused by the salvage company employed by the shipowners, on a no win, no fee basis.
The Daily Telegraph tells us:
the disaster has exposed how little control the Government has over salvage.
It quotes the Department of Transport as saying that salvage was
essentially the responsibility of the firm contracted by the ship's owner.
Is that true? Did Ministers have powers to intervene and to take decisions on the calling of other tugs? Did Ministers fail to use their powers, and thus are they partly responsible for the disaster? The Secretary of State must realise that a unit of his own Department cannot answer those questions properly.
I press the Secretary of State to think again, and to recall Lord Donaldson. Clearly, his expertise is such that a speedy, independent investigation is possible. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must find out the truth and learn the lessons? Can the Secretary of State see that his refusal to recall Lord Donaldson will leave many people thinking that the Government have something to hide?
I also press the Secretary of State to make urgent arrangements—I am surprised that it was not announced in his statement—to ensure that all local people who have suffered damage and threats to their livelihoods will be provided with full advice and proper compensation.
Lastly, I put it to the Secretary of State that the continuing decline of British shipping and the British fleet as a result of cost-cutting is part of the explanation of the disaster. Today's edition of The Independent refers to the ship as being
Built in Spain; owned by a Norwegian; registered in Cyprus; managed from Glasgow; chartered by the French; crewed by Russians … carrying an American cargo.
I might add that its rescue was attempted by a Chinese tug, with a local Chinese chef interpreting. Does the Secretary of State agree that such a splintering of responsibility is bound to lead to problems?
I repeat my request to the Secretary of State to establish a high-level working party, chair it himself, and take action to restore the British fleet and the better standards of seafaring that we clearly need.

Sir George Young: I welcome what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) said at the beginning, when she uttered some kind words about those who were involved in the exercise. I hope that she had time to read today's edition of The Independent, which contains a perceptive article by a member of the Donaldson inquiry. He writes:
The immediate issue is too important to be turned into a tug-of-war between political parties. In my view, the salvors pursued the only course they could.
I turn now to the details of the specific questions posed by the hon. Lady. I do not agree with what she said about the inquiries that I have established. The unit to which I referred is not part of my Department. It reports directly to the Secretary of State; it does not go through my Department—nor has it shrunk from criticising my Department in the past when it has seen fit so to do. It is impartial and independent.
As to the hon. Lady's questions about the refusal of tugs and other resources that were offered to the salvage company, that will be covered by the inquiry to which I referred in my opening remarks. Yes, it is the case that Ministers have powers to intervene, but I hope that the hon. Lady will reflect on whether Ministers have the resources, the experience and the skills necessary to second-guess a firm of professional salvors who have all the skills to deal with crises of that kind.
I turn to the hon. Lady's comments about Donaldson. Lord Donaldson did not institute an inquiry into the Braer incident. He provided a thorough, comprehensive and wise review on the general subject of the prevention of pollution and how to make merchant shipping safer. I have that report: the Government have accepted 86 of its 103 recommendations, and we are considering a further 13.
In this case, we have done exactly what we did with the Braer: we appointed an inquiry under the marine accident investigation branch to report on what occurred. We can then test the results of that inquiry and of the inquiry into the salvage operation against the basic parameters set out by Lord Donaldson, which the Government accept. At this stage, there is no case for reopening Lord Donaldson's comprehensive work, most of which is accepted by both sides of the House.
I repeat that the Government have launched an independent inquiry into the three aspects that most concern the House: why the accident happened, how the

salvage operation was conducted, and how the clean-up operations were then implemented. I think that that is the appropriate approach for Government, and that we shall learn the lessons that must be learned.

Mr. David Harris: As president of the sea safety group and sponsor of the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act 1994, I consider that my right hon. Friend has done the right thing in setting up detailed and wide-ranging inquiries. Will he make sure that those inquiries cover a number of issues?
First, will the inquiries examine the use of language and the inability of some seafarers to understand English—in particular, the recommendation that the International Maritime Organisation should consider making English the recognised language of the sea? Secondly, will he look again at the stationing of tugs, which is undoubtedly a key issue, and the way in which salvage operations are conducted? Although I agree that it is wrong and ridiculous for Ministers to be countermanding people at sea, nevertheless there is a need to examine carefully the mechanism of mounting salvage operations.

Sir George Young: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. In regard to communication, shipping is an international industry, but if serious communication problems occurred in the salvage operation, they would be a matter for the inspector. As for the stationing of tugs, the Belton report—one of the follow-up reports of the Donaldson inquiry—will be published shortly. It confirmed Lord Donaldson's initial findings about the two priorities for locating the tugs. It did not identify west or north Wales as primary or secondary areas.
I should have responded to the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) on compensation. People will be entitled to compensation for financial loss, and I shall ensure that they have access to the necessary information to enable them to pursue that.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Surely the remit for the inquiries announced this afternoon is too narrow. For example, I understand from reports today that the oil slick could threaten Lundy and the west country coast, making the environmental implications even greater.
Let me take the Secretary of State back to the final sentence of his statement, when he said:
The Government are determined to find out exactly what happened, to publish the results and to learn and apply the lessons.
Surely there is a much more basic question: why did the accident happen, and could it have been prevented? In that respect, will the Secretary of State examine the role of the coastguard?
As the right hon. Gentleman will know from the debate that I initiated last week, there are real concerns about the manning of the coastguard service. I understand that, when the tanker went aground last Thursday night, the coastguard marine rescue centre responsible for the Milford Haven approaches was undermanned. There was one senior watch officer on duty and one regular, when there should have been at least three on watch. The officer monitoring channel 16 VHF had to listen to that frequency and to landlines for a 12-hour stretch instead of a maximum of two hours.
Will the Secretary of State undertake swiftly—without waiting for the inquiries—to look into whether the coastguards' role in the incident was affected by undermanning?

Sir George Young: I made it clear on Monday, and I do so again today, that efficiency gains in the two marine agencies and the MAIB have not and will not be made at the expense of safety. Safety is and will remain paramount, as has been made clear to the chief executive of the Coastguard Agency and the other agencies. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, of course we shall look at the environmental impacts, wherever they occur. If pollution spreads to the area that he mentioned, the assessment to which I referred in my statement will examine the impact on that area as well.

Mr. Nick Ainger: I, too, would like to place on record my appreciation for all the work that has been done by the crews of tugs and the clean-up crews on the beaches, sometimes in appalling conditions. However, the Secretary of State's statement was quite appallingly complacent. My constituency faces an environmental and economic disaster. The tourist industry has already received massive cancellations, in my view totally unnecessarily, as I am sure that virtually all the beaches will be clean within a month.
I waited for the word "sorry" or an apology to come from the Secretary of State's lips, and we heard neither. The Secretary of State and the Department of Transport are culpable in the disaster. We should not forget that the vessel ran aground at 8.10 on Thursday night. Until 7 o'clock on Monday night, it was under the control of the tugs operated by the salvors. The vessel bounced from rock to rock in the entrance of St. Anne's. We were told by the Donaldson report that far more powerful tugs were required. It is clear from the statements made by Lord Donaldson that the recommendations for more powerful tugs around our coast have not been fully implemented.
At lunchtime, I was engaged in a radio broadcast with Professor Maclntyre, and he concurred with the view that the recommendations were not fully implemented. There was no powerful tug in the vicinity, and there are still insufficient powerful tugs around our coasts.
Until Monday night, that vessel bounced from rock to rock. In calm conditions, at 7 o'clock on Monday night, it was put on the rocks by the salvors, at a time when there were no adverse weather conditions. As a result, 70,000 tonnes of oil spilt. Until Monday night, only 1,000 tonnes had spilt. That is the responsibility of the Department of Transport, first because the Secretary of State did not implement the Donaldson report, and, secondly, because he allowed that farce to carry on for four days.
The Secretary of State had the power to intervene, and he did not. Now, he offers us an inquiry within his Department. My constituents have no confidence whatever in that type of inquiry. The only person who should conduct that inquiry is Lord Donaldson, because he has the expertise and the background. I urge the Secretary of State to change his mind, even now, and appoint Lord Donaldson to carry out a full inquiry.

Sir George Young: I remind the hon. Member that on Monday, in The Guardian, he was reported as saying that he had no criticism of the salvage operation.

Mr. Ainger: I believed what I was told.

Sir George Young: That was three days after the incident took place.
I also regret that, on Tuesday, after a meeting with me, the hon. Gentleman put out a press release which attributed to me remarks that I did not make. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will, on reflection, reconsider what he did.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, one of the lessons that we have learnt from the Braer incident is that the reporting, in some cases in dramatic terms, of the incident does far more damage to tourist and other industries than the incident itself. That is a point that the hon. Gentleman made just now by reporting—rightly—that the beaches are likely to be cleaned in the near future. I am sure that no one would want to say anything in the House that would damage the tourist industry in Pembrokeshire.
I repeat what I have said and what my noble Friend Lord Goschen has said about the availability of tugs. My Department made available one of the two tugs that are available on standby to the salvors, and they declined it because, in their view, they had access to the tugs they needed. The independent review that I have announced will consider all the important issues that the hon. Gentleman has rightly raised in his questions.
We understand, of course, the strength of feeling on the matter, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not imply that the inspectors I have appointed will be anything but independent and impartial. As the inspectors have done in the past, they will criticise my Department if it deserves criticism. [HON. MEMBERS: "And you."] Yes, and me.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: While I note my right hon. Friend's comment that most of the recommendations of Lord Donaldson have already been implemented, will he specifically deal with the recommendation that tugs be stationed permanently all around the coast and the likely cost implications if that were to be done?

Sir George Young: Lord Donaldson made it clear that he did not think that that would be a practical use of resources. That was clear from his report, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: The Secretary of State's statement that it is not always possible to overcome the forces of nature will be regarded as extraordinarily complacent. The view held locally, with every justification, is that, if resources had been properly and efficiently deployed, the forces of nature could have been overcome in this case.
The Sea Empress incident is more serious than the Braer, because it is likely to have a much more severe environmental impact. If the inquiry is any less searching, complete and open than the Braer inquiry, there will be great anger in south-west Wales—just as there is anger because, whereas heavy tugs have been deployed off Dover and the north of Scotland, they have not been deployed in south-west Wales—despite that coast being subject to extraordinarily busy tanker movements, great environmental sensitivity and importance, and one where seafaring is inherently hazardous. In those circumstances, heavy tug facilities should certainly be available there.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make it absolutely clear that the cost of restoring the area and of all compensation to the local economy and to the people of the wide area affected will be fully met according to the


"polluter pays" principle—just as the oil industry and the shippers should meet the cost of deploying heavy tugs, so that such an incident does not happen again.

Sir George Young: I confirm that the polluter will pay. Up to the first £10 million is borne by the ship's insurers. Any sum over that is borne by the international oil petroleum compensation fund, as with the Braer.
Lord Donaldson did not indicate that the area around Milford Haven should have the same priority in respect of heavy tugs as Dover and the Minches. The inquiry that I have announced will be the same type as that initiated for the Braer incident—it will have the same powers, and be conducted every bit as rigorously.

Sir Hector Monro: Following the Braer incident, many conservation bodies, scientists and the Scottish Office gained a great deal of practical first-hand information. Will my right hon. Friend consider applying some of that knowledge in the weeks ahead, while Pembrokeshire is being cleared up? As a crumb of comfort to the people in Pembrokeshire who have been so grievously hurt, I can confirm that the insurers and the oil industry paid up the compensation that was expected of them after the Braer disaster, without too much difficulty.

Sir George Young: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that assurance, and I will certainly pass on his generous offer of assistance in the recovery operation.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: My hon. Friends have made clear the anger felt by the people of Wales at an incident in an area of tremendous marine importance that is part of the national heritage of Wales.
Commercial shipping throughout the world is an unregulated industry relative to others. Donaldson makes it clear, in the report that is at the right hon. Gentleman's side, that the United Kingdom has excellent facilities for cleaning up oil spills. In view of that, what will the Secretary of State do to guarantee that the beaches of Gower and the shellfish industry of north Gower will not suffer as a result of the Sea Empress incident?
My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) made clear his concerns. I am surprised that the Government still need to be taught lessons. I hope that the Government have good teachers—as good as Lord Donaldson, because their response is the same every time that a disaster occurs. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell the House what new lessons he will learn this time.

Sir George Young: It would be advisable to await the result of the inquiries before I say what new lessons can be learned. Of course I understand the hon. Gentleman's anger. I visited the area on Friday, and I understand the concern of those who live there. He is not quite right to say that the industry is unregulated. For example, we detain ships when they are sub-standard, and publish the names of the countries that are offending. We take safety very seriously. We take action against ships that are unsafe, and detain them until appropriate precautions are taken.
The hon. Gentleman rightly reminded the House that we have good facilities to deal with these incidents. We are one of the few countries with aircraft on standby that are dedicated to the spraying of dispersants in such incidents. A total of seven Dakotas and Cessnas are available solely for that purpose. We set up the marine pollution control unit, which has the highest technology available to plot the impact of tides on pollution. It was in place in Milford Haven within four hours of the ship going aground.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to give an assurance that parts of his constituency will not be affected. Of course, I cannot give the categorical assurance that they will not, but if they are, they will be cleaned up and restored as quickly as possible.

Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend has the sympathy of the House, inasmuch as no one seems to take into account the fact that it was one of the worst hurricanes to strike the coast for many years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense!"] One of the queries in the Donaldson report was about the lack of oceangoing tugs of sufficient quality and quantity to be able to bring a tanker of that size off the rocks. Has my right hon. Friend any plans to investigate whether money can be spent on essential stationing for oceangoing tugs around our coastline?

Sir George Young: On the last point of my hon. Friend's question, we have already taken action on the priorities that Lord Donaldson identified, and have placed two tugs in strategic places at the Minches and at Dover. We shall shortly publish the Belton report, which outlines where resources should be placed next. The availability of tugs will be examined by the inquiry, but, as has been clear from some initial comments, it is not just the availability of the tugs that is important but their manoeuvrability and their ability to work as a team in the narrow straits of the channel into Milford Haven.
My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that the rescue operation was not assisted by the weather. There was a real risk to life and limb in undertaking the operation at certain times of the week, and one cannot totally discount the impact of the weather, the tide and other factors on the safety of this particular salvage operation.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: The Minister referred to the use of planes, but does he realise that that happens only after the event? We are talking about the prevention of such tragedies. I believe that the Government have been culpably negligent as far as taking the advice of Donaldson and the situation around our coastal waters are concerned.
The Government have sat back and watched a reduction over the years in the standards of coastal lights in estuarial and coastal waters. That ship should never have been allowed to enter estuarial waters in the conditions that prevailed at the time. If the maritime organisation had been as efficient as it should be, that vessel should not have been allowed to come in until the risk had passed.
Regardless of whether a pilot is on board or not, the vessel should not have been allowed to enter estuarial waters with the danger of suffering damage to its hull. How long must we wait before we impose the standards of double skins on these tankers to avoid what is


happening? It is a disgrace that the Government sit back after what Donaldson had said. I underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short). The marine accident investigation branch covered up what happened to the MV Derbyshire for years before it conceded that the matter should be referred to another body.
When will the Government act on these matters?

Sir George Young: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The Government established the Donaldson report. We commissioned it, we published it, and we accepted 86 of the 103 recommendations. The United Kingdom has set and implemented higher standards of sea safety than most other countries. The hon. Gentleman is right, of course, to say that these accidents should not occur. That is why I have set up an inquiry to ascertain what went wrong in this instance, so that we can learn the lessons and take steps to ensure that such an incident does not happen again.
The Milford Haven port authority has all the powers it needs to exclude vessels if it thinks that they are unsafe.
The issue of double hulls was taken up on Monday. I urge the hon. Gentleman to read what the Donaldson report says about double hulls. The report urges caution before they are advocated as a panacea to the difficulties that have detained us this afternoon.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to tolerate further statements from Back-Bench Members. I want brisk questions. If they are not forthcoming, the statement will have to be closed down.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the possible conclusions that might be drawn from this incident is that it would be better if more British cargoes were carried in British-registered vessels crewed by British nationals? When P and O and the Shell tanker group are flagging out more of their vessels, will my right hon. Friend give the House the assurance that he will speak urgently to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in discussing the recommendations currently in front of him from the Chamber of Shipping?

Sir George Young: As my hon. Friend says, the course he advocates is one for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He will know that, in last year's Finance Bill, as it then was, when I happened to be Financial Secretary to the Treasury, we introduced an element of fiscal roll-over relief for British ships, which was welcomed. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Secretary of State recall that I asked him on Monday how many sea birds were affected by the oil pollution? He said that six had died. How many sea birds have now been affected—not only those that are dead—by the oil pollution? How many people are working on rescuing wildlife? What is being done to save the roosting sites, which are among the most important in the world?
Perhaps we should be grateful that a Chinese tug turned up. Given the Government's incompetence, I am surprised that it was not three tonnes of chicken chow mein.

Sir George Young: I do not have exact information now about the number of birds that have been affected. If I am able to procure that information, or if my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping is, it will be passed on.
There is some limited oil on Skomer, but there is not a large population of birds there at present. They are expected to return in about four to six weeks. The species most affected has been gulls, with a number reported as being stained. My latest information is that relatively few birds have been found dead or are being cleaned.

Mr. Barry Field: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the inquiry ascertains whether a satellite navigation system was available to both the master and the pilot of the vessel, and whether it was the pilot or the master who was giving instructions when the vessel grounded?
Will he consider the inquiry ascertaining also when the vessel last docked in the United Kingdom and whether she was inspected, and publishing the report, if there was one, of that inspection? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the inquiry considers the role that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has to play in liaising in disasters of this sort, bearing in mind that it has a useful input in trying to save some of the sea birds?
Will my right hon. Friend consider asking the Department of Education and Employment to ascertain whether the Natural Environment Research Council might undertake a long-term study of the implications of oil pollution in the area affected, so that we might gain some scientific knowledge?
As I was a Member of this place following a marine accident in my constituency, single-handedly, with no support from any Member on either side of the House, my efforts led to the publication of maritime accident reports, to bring them into line with the air accident reports produced by my right hon. Friend's Department, will he utterly reject the slur that has been cast on the marine accident investigation branch?

Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said, and especially for his final comments. One of his questions concerned the Department of Education and Employment. I think that the Countryside Council for Wales may be doing part of the work to which he alluded. I shall certainly take up his other points on that theme.
My hon. Friend's question about responsibility for the initial accident and where it should fall goes to the heart of the matter. I hope that that will become clear when the MAIB report, following the inquiry into the accident, is published.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I accept that double hulls are not a panacea, but vessels of that size, which carry such enormous cargoes, are by definition extremely unstable and extremely vulnerable. I should remind the House that, four months ago, there was an incident in those very same waters, when the Borga ran aground, and that the hon. Member for Pembroke


(Mr. Ainger) warned that a major accident could happen at any time. The Borga was double-hulled, and there was no major leakage. Will the Secretary of State re-examine the use of double-skinned ships, especially in areas such as the Pembrokeshire coast, which have such high value for nature conservation?

Sir George Young: Yes, I shall consider that. It is important not to draw too many conclusions when contrasting the Borga incident with this one, because the speed of impact may have been different, and the ships may have come aground at different parts of the coast.
In relation to double hulls, I should remind the House that Lord Donaldson said:
We have some doubts on the merits of double hulls and consider that there is scope for discussion".
He also makes the point that, in certain circumstances, double-hulled tankers can be more dangerous than those that are single-hulled. One must approach that issue with some caution.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, throughout this disaster, the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, Lord Goschen, appears to have been camped out on a promontory, providing information not only to the nation but to the Government? Does my right hon. Friend wish to divorce himself from the racist and snobbish remarks about the Chinese gentleman, who chipped in his translation skills in addition to his culinary skills to help out in a very difficult situation?

Sir George Young: I agree with my hon. Friend's final remark. I also pay tribute to my noble Friend, the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, who went up to Milford Haven on Tuesday and returned only this morning. He took a personal interest in the responsibilities that my Department have with the marine pollution control unit. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's kind words to him.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody:: Does the Secretary of State agree that the removal of air-sea rescue from Brawdy, cuts to the coastguard and changes in the marine accident investigation branch have had any affect on what has happened? Does he seriously suggest that this incident should be investigated by a branch of his own Department, which is also suffering considerable cuts?

Sir George Young: I am satisfied that the MAIB has all the necessary resources to produce the type of report that I announced at the beginning of my statement. I have made it quite clear—I shall do so again—that safety is our paramount concern, and that it will remain so. The chief executives of the agencies have that message from Ministers clearly in their minds.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Why is it that everything that goes right is a result of the work of Ministers, while anything that goes wrong is the fault of someone else? The Secretary of State has blamed the weather, the press and the judgment of the salvors.
Has not this accident turned into a catastrophe because the tugs did not have enough pulling power, and because they were not pulling the vessel, but the vessel was pulling the tugs—back on to the rocks? Is not that the Government's responsibility, because they failed to carry out the Donaldson report recommendation that big tugs should be located at five centres, and that three of those tugs should have been set in place as an interim measure? The tug at the western approaches has not been set in place, and that was the Government's responsibility. Why does not the Secretary of State say the word that the whole country is asking him to say: sorry?

Sir George Young: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I did not attribute blame in my opening statement. I said that I was setting up inquiries and reviews to find out exactly what happened. That is the right way to approach the matter. It may be that the MAIB apportions blame differently from the way in which the hon. Gentleman has, but I do not know. We must await the report.
In relation to the tugs, I urge the hon. Gentleman to read the article in The Independent, because the matter is not necessarily as simple as many people might think. The author of that article makes the point that, at a key stage, more tugs and more pulling power might have done more damage to the hull when it was impaled on a pinnacle.

Mr. Tony Marlow: To what extent has the environment recovered—and how long did it take to do so—from the Braer disaster? Did my right hon. Friend read the article by Matt Ridley in The Daily Telegraph earlier this week, in which he said that, mercifully, things recover from such incidents in a shorter period than most people fear?

Sir George Young: I read that article, as well as several other articles that have made the same point. There is a robustness in the marine ecology, to which my hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention. One must, of course, take all the necessary steps to minimise such accidents, but one should not over-dramatise the long-term consequences.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas" has a hollow ring about it today. Those of us who know and love that part of south-west Wales care very much about the environment that has been severely damaged—we cannot underestimate the damage to the environment. How many such disasters is the Minister willing to put up with—one a year as an annual event, one every two years, or one every three years? Is he aware that the oil industry itself believes that tougher regulation of the industry is the only answer, and that will only come from the Government's initiative?

Sir George Young: One accident is one accident too many. This country takes the lead in driving through the International Maritime Organisation higher standards, not least on ferry safety. There is a meeting on the subject this week designed to achieve higher standards of safety.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Bearing in mind the fact that people's livelihoods are at stake, will the Secretary of State give the House some idea of the criteria for compensation? Will it embrace fishing interests,


tourism and other interested parties? How far along the south Wales coast will the compensation provisions apply?

Sir George Young: Compensation is available for property damage, economic loss and reasonable preventive measures. Claimants should initially discuss the matter with their solicitors or with the fund I mentioned to assess whether their claim will be eligible. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said, so far claims have been met promptly by those involved.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As the hon. Member who represents Hound point in the closed waters of the Forth, may I ask what the time scale is for the discussions on double skins?

Sir George Young: The IMO has decided that single skins should be phased out over a period. That period varies from country to country—for America, I think that it is about the year 2013. Discussions are continuing, not least in the light of evidence about whether or not double-skinned hulls are the only answer. It is important to aim at improved safety. Double hulls may be an answer, but there may be other ways of achieving the same safety.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Lord Donaldson was wrong when he suggested that, in exceptionally heavy weather, very large crude carriers and other big vessels should use the Minches. The dreadful event in Wales has caused serious concern to fishermen who fish the Minches. I shall tell the Secretary of State, as I told his predecessor, that, in heavy weather, such big vessels should stand well to the west of the Western Isles. I urge the Secretary of State to take advice from our fishermen.

Sir George Young: I take seriously the hon. Gentleman's point. He asks me to bring his comments to Lord Donaldson's attention, and I shall of course do so.

Mr. Stephen Day: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, on the night of this tragic accident, he was not personally on the bridge of the Sea Empress, as, listening to Opposition Members, one would think that my right hon. Friend drove the ship on to the rocks himself?

Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that the Government did not own the ship and were not on board the ship. The Government's responsibility is to set the parameters, which we are happy to do. But ultimately, the responsibility for many such accidents rests with the individuals involved.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: In his statement, the Secretary of State said that we must not

lose sight of the need to learn lessons for the future. What is the oceangoing tug cover in the north and west of Scotland? Does he consider that adequate in terms of the Donaldson report? Does he—yes or no—believe that tug cover in Milford Haven was adequate following that report's recommendations?

Sir George Young: On the first question, I can answer for the tug cover provided by my Department, but Donaldson's point is that other tugs are available and must be taken into account. I will send the hon. Lady a reply to that question. On Milford Haven, the salvors' reaction was that they had enough tugs available to turn down the Government's offer of one of their tugs, either from Dover or from the Minches.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Tug availability is central to this matter. Was the Secretary of State aware by the weekend that the only powerful tug available was crewed by Chinese—none of whom could speak English—and could not be used effectively? If his office was not aware, why not? If it was aware, why did it not intervene to send a powerful vessel with an English-speaking crew from Dover to Milford Haven, or an even closer vessel in Brest, which had a French-speaking crew but presumably someone on it could speak English? He had the power to intervene. He should have known. Why did he not?

Sir George Young: I am not in the business of second-guessing professional salvage firms. The Chinese tug was in Falmouth. Initially, it looked like a valuable resource, but, when it was used, it was found that it was not a salvage but a towing tug, that the crew lacked expertise, and that the tug was not suited to complex salvage work in confined but highly tidal waters.

Mr. Graham Allen: It appears not only that the Secretary of State was not on the Sea Empress's bridge on Thursday night, but that he has not been at the Department's bridge in the subsequent five days. The heart of the matter is that the salvage company offered advice about adequate tugging power which has proved, at best, to be grossly optimistic—but, above all, it was advice. Who accepted that advice, who failed to question it, who was responsible, and who took the decision not to send adequate tug power to the disaster scene?

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman simply has not been listening to what I have said. I have set up an inquiry that will find the answers to the questions that he poses. I invite him to have some patience and to wait for the independent inquiries, the results of which we will publish as soon as they are available.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a statement on the business for next week, which will be as follows:

MONDAY 26 FEBRUARY—Debate on the Scott report on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
TUESDAY 27 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 28 FEBRUARY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Until 7 o'clock, motions on the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motions on the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order and the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order.
Money resolution relating to the Noise Bill.
Ways and Means resolution relating to the Prisoners' Earnings Bill.
THURSDAY 29 FEBRUARY—Debate on Welsh Affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 1 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 4 MARCH—Second Reading of the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill [Lords], probably followed by other Government business.

On Tuesday 5 March and Wednesday 6 March, I expect to take Government legislation and to provide Opposition time. On Thursday 7 March, I hope to have a debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. On Friday 8 March, the business will be private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 28 February to consider the Official Journal No. OJ C303 of 14 November 1995, relating to the European Court of Auditors' annual report for the financial year 1994, together with the replies from the institutions, and the Official Journal No. OJ C352 of 30 December 1995, relating to the European Court of Auditors' statements of assurance for the financial year 1994.

[Wednesday 28 February:

European Standing Committee B—Relevant Community Documents: (a) OJ C303, Court of Auditors' Report for 1994; (b) OJ C352, Court of Auditors' Statement of Assurance 1994. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: (a) HC 51-vi (1995–96); (b) HC 51-x (1995–96).

Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Reports—Relevant documents: Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order; Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order; Local Government Finance (Scotland) Notional Amounts Report.]

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I am the first to admit that it is possible for the House to engage in momentous debates on motions for the Adjournment. Indeed, it is on record that the Chamberlain Government were brought down on such a motion. Adjournment motions are not to be dismissed out of hand. Why,

however, are the Government not inviting the House to agree with their view on the Scott report? Without a motion of that kind, they will be unable to claim at any time in the future that the House of Commons made a decision to agree with the report. It is almost the equivalent of parliamentary cowardice not to table a motion on which the House could divide.
Given the seriousness of the matter, it would be useful to know on Monday whether the Prime Minister has issued a writ against last Sunday's edition of The Observer, which accused him of lying in respect of the Scott report.
It would also be useful to hear a statement next week from the Minister for Industry and Energy about the Government's intentions in respect of nuclear privatisation—preferably with a view to its being scrapped. Yesterday, the Minister told the world that the Government had received an "indirect approach" from the American company Duke Power, whose safety record on nuclear reactors is being questioned in the United States. The Minister should make a statement explaining how United Kingdom nuclear regulators with no experience of regulating safety in a profit-motivated nuclear industry can protect the safety of United Kingdom citizens and communities.
May we also have a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the special rules that govern the tax treatment of foreign nationals? Why should members of middle eastern royal families, companies that front for overseas Governments—such as the Kuwait Investment Office—and now the chair of British Gas be treated differently from millions of United Kingdom citizens who are prepared to put their shoulders to the British wheel and pay their fair share?
It has been widely reported that the Millennium Commission, chaired by the Secretary of State for National Heritage, has already decided in principle to award the millennium exhibition to London rather than the west midlands. Given that the award will represent the largest tranche of lottery cash, and that the Secretary of State is on record as referring to "committing public funds", should not the decision be announced in the House rather than at a press conference? It was made behind closed doors, with all the usual hurrying and scurrying; none of the participants could put their case to the public.
I give due notice that we shall be asking my next question until we receive an answer. Will the Government be moving the writ for the by-election in South-East Staffordshire next week? The delay is unacceptable. I do not want to hear about conventions relating to a certain number of weeks; we are ready to go. The people of South-East Staffordshire deserve a voice to put their case in the House of Commons, wherever that voice may come from.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has spoken with characteristic vigour. [Interruption.] I did not think that he was aggressive; he merely spoke with characteristic vigour. I shall reply with—I hope—characteristic emollience to his questions, although in many instances I have little to add to what I have said before. That certainly applies to the South-East Staffordshire by-election writ, and, indeed, to Monday's debate, on which I shall not seek to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said only about an hour and a quarter ago.
On nuclear privatisation, safety is and will remain paramount in any arrangements. The Health and Safety Executive has confirmed that there will be no reduction in nuclear safety as a result of privatisation. On the points that I took to be principally related to British Gas, rather than the other matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred, Mr. Giordano' s pay package is, of course, a matter for the shareholders.
I shall bring the point about the Millennium Commission to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, who will be answering questions on Monday 4 March.

Mr. John Biffen: On Monday's business, has my right hon. Friend been approached by the official Opposition about the offer of an Opposition day to match the Adjournment debate, the motion for which would be amendable, which would consequently enable a two-day debate on Scott and therefore validate the sincerity of their protestations?

Mr. Newton: No, I regret that I have not.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Given that only this afternoon Sir Richard Scott wrote to the President of the Board of Trade to say that he considered that Ministers were wrongly and selectivity misquoting what he has said at press conferences about his report, and that also this afternoon the Prime Minister said that the Government would be bringing forward substantive changes as a result of the report's conclusions, is it not slightly ludicrous that the Government are hiding behind the procedural device of an Adjournment motion, rather than arranging a substantive motion that could be amended and on which the House could vote on Monday?

Mr. Newton: No, I do not think that it is ludicrous that the Government have thought it right to have a debate on the motion for the Adjournment, partly because although various different individual aspects of the Scott report have been focused on, it is a hugely wide-ranging report and contains many recommendations on issues such as export licensing control, the future use of public interest immunity certificates and other matters. Such a wide-ranging report demands the wide-ranging debate for which we have provided.

Sir Norman Fowler: On the millennium exhibition, which was raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no doubt that the announcement on its location will be made next week? Is he also aware of the concern, especially in the midlands, about the decision-making process that appears to be behind that decision? At the very least, we expect that a statement will be made at the Dispatch Box by the Secretary of State for National Heritage on the day of the decision.

Mr. Newton: Of course, I understand that there is concern in both the areas that have been the subject of speculation. I shall draw the representations of my right hon. Friend to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as I will those of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker).

Mr. David Winnick: Following the previous question, is the Leader of the House aware that

many people in the west midlands consider that they have been treated shabbily in the past? If my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is right that a decision has been made and that it is not in favour of the west midlands, dissatisfaction in the region will only increase. Will there be a statement? If—as I understand it—no decision has yet been taken, will the Leader of the House ensure that the feelings of west midlands people and all hon. Members who have the honour to represent west midlands constituencies are fully taken into account?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot add to what I have said twice. I shall ensure that his comments are also brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Sir Michael Spicer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of interest across the country in the Government's review of Government research establishments? Could we have a debate on the subject before the Government take a final decision on what could be very important for a number of hon. Members?

Mr. Newton: I am aware that there is a great deal of interest in the matter and I shall bear my hon. Friend's request in mind.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will know that, in the House's lottery, my question dealing with the further democratisation of Northern Ireland and the use of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee was not called in Northern Ireland questions. Will the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland share his thoughts with us on the matter or at least follow the practice of the Secretary of State for Wales, who I understand has been inviting Members who represent Welsh constituencies to meet him to discuss how they might go down the road with such matters in Wales?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has made representations on those matters in recent weeks; I do not think that I can add in general terms to what I have said. Two or three weeks ago, he asked me about the possibility of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee meeting to discuss hospital provision in Northern Ireland. We would be willing for the Committee to hold a debate on the draft "Regional Strategy for Health and Social Well-Being", which the Department of Health and Social Services published for consultation last year. If that happens, it may be best if the debate takes place in the next few weeks, so that any comments can be considered before the strategy is published in final form.

Mr. John Redwood: Will the Government make time available so that we can debate the growing powers of the European Courts and how parliamentary sovereignty could be reasserted?

Mr. Newton: I cannot promise to make time available for such a debate in the near future. However, my right hon. Friend will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in Prime Minister's Question Time in respect of the European Court of Human Rights.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that if he does not get on with moving the


writ for the by-election in South-East Staffordshire, somebody from the Opposition Back Benches might well do it? I have had some practice because I have moved two writs already. It is high time that the people in the area had a chance to take part in that democratic test.
It was announced yesterday that Coalite would have to pay a fine of £150,000 plus £200,000 costs. In view of the fact that Ministers have said for six years that the polluter must pay, will Coalite ensure that everyone in the Bolsover area who has been affected gets due compensation? Will the Leader of the House ensure that there is, at long last, a public inquiry, initiated by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the relevant Minister? Will he tell the Tory quango, Derbyshire health authority, to conduct a comprehensive review into the effects of dioxin in the Bolsover area and into the direct connection with all forms of cancer, so that the people in the area can feel safer, now that Coalite has pleaded guilty after six years?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that those responsible will have noted the first half of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. On the second half, I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would commend Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution for the diligent way in which it investigated and pursued the case. Leaving that aside for the moment, I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of both Environment and Agriculture Ministers, who are here to answer questions next week.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on proposals for a British academy of sport? Is he aware that last year, I asked the university of Sussex and the university of Brighton to take the lead on a proposal to develop such an academy in Sussex, where there is ideal potential? A preliminary paper has now been submitted to the Department of National Heritage. Is it not a project of which not only Sussex, but the whole nation could be proud?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that the project is worth while and will be studied with proper care by the Department of National Heritage. Sport is always a good subject for a debate and I shall bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind, although my recollection is that we had a day's debate on sport on a Friday at the back end of last year.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Given that our proceedings are broadcast and that we all have a responsibility—perhaps the responsibility of the Leader of the House has a special one—to ensure that our proceedings are intelligible and understood by millions of people across the country, can the right hon. Gentleman explain in two simple sentences the relationship between a debate on arms sales to Iraq and a motion, tabled by the Government, That this House do now adjourn?

Mr. Newton: I have already explained that the report is wide ranging and goes into some very important issues, which the Government have undertaken to consider, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed earlier this afternoon. A debate on the Adjournment seems the best way in which to provide for a debate on such a wide-ranging report.

Mr. David Porter: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the severe battering that the coast of Suffolk and Norfolk received this week. We have seen lives at risk, houses at risk and the Broads at risk. Will he arrange for a debate next week on coastal protection, sea defences and flood prevention? Although the worst of the winter may be over, we still face the risk of surge tides in the North sea in the spring.

Mr. Newton: I have already made the point that the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who have particular responsibility for those matters, are here to answer questions next week. I will, of course, bear in mind the request for a debate. I come from an east coast town that was significantly flooded, during my boyhood, in the North sea disaster of 1952 so I am, of course, aware of the concerns about those matters on the east coast.

Mr. David Hanson: May we have an early debate next week on open access to televising major sporting events, especially given the recent announcement by Sky television of a pay-as-you-view scheme for the Bruno-Tyson fight on 17 March? Many of us view that as the thin end of the wedge, which will ultimately allow major sporting events to be seen only by those who can afford to pay for them directly.

Mr. Newton: It will be within the hon. Gentleman's observation that there has already been some debate on those matters in another place. I anticipate that the Broadcasting Bill will arrive here in due course and it will provide ample opportunity for debate.

Mr. Harold Elletson: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 436, which has been signed by 35 Labour Members, including two Lancashire Labour Members?
[That this House deplores the continuing oppression of the people of East Timor by the Government of Indonesia; recalls that one-third of the people of East Timor have been killed in the twenty years since its illegal annexation; is appalled at the fact that the United Kingdom Government has sanctioned the sale of British Aerospace Hawk aircraft to the Indonesian Government despite the fact that such aircraft have been used to attack the people of East Timor; and demands that the delivery of Hawk jets and other weapons to Indonesia be cancelled until a full enquiry on the lines of that conducted by Lord Justice Scott into the Arms to Iraq affair has investigated the role of the British Government in allowing such sales.]
The motion calls for a new Scott inquiry into the sale of British Aerospace Hawk aircraft to Indonesia.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is absolutely no evidence that British Aerospace Hawk aircraft have been used in attacks on civilians in East Timor? However, there is plenty of evidence that British Aerospace employs thousands of people in Lancashire. Is not it now clear that the original Scott inquiry and what we are now seeing are just the tip of the iceberg, and that Labour's real agenda is to attack the defence industry and defence exports? Can we have a debate on the matter, so that we can expose the threat that the Labour party poses to defence industry jobs in Lancashire?

Mr. Newton: It may be that my hon. Friend, if he catches your eye, Madam Speaker, will find it possible to


make such a point in Monday's debate. I simply confirm that the export licence for Hawk was granted only after assurances from the Indonesian Government that the aircraft would not be used for internal security and a rigorous examination of the application against the usual criteria.

Mr. Roy Hughes: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 423?
[That this House notes the EU Driving Licence Directive which comes into force on 1st July 1996 and provides new more rigorous eyesight regulations for LGV drivers, which the Department of Transport estimates will fail to be met by about 3000 current drivers; while accepting that road safety is paramount, is concerned that the employment of these drivers will be threatened; and calls on the Government to consult with employers and unions with a view to helping with re-training or where necessary a compensation package.]
The motion deals with the new regulations on eyesight tests for heavy goods vehicle drivers. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is considerable concern about the issue throughout the country and that the regulations could result in many of our most experienced and safest drivers being put off the road? Can we have an early debate on the matter?

Mr. Newton: My understanding is that the new regulations are, in almost all respects, very similar to those already applied in the United Kingdom, although a small number of existing drivers may lose their entitlement to drive lorries and buses when their current licences expire. Although I do not dismiss that point, I think that some press reports have given an exaggerated picture of the impact of the changes and have caused unnecessary alarm.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: May I urge my right hon. Friend to allow an early debate on the operation of the European convention on human rights? Now that the Prime Minister has said that there are defects in the way in which it works, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government explain to the House what, if any, disadvantage would be suffered by the United Kingdom if we were no longer a signatory to that convention?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is joining my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) in his request. Although I cannot add to what I said in response to the earlier question, I shall ensure that attention is drawn to my hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Although my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) and I suspect that the Scottish Office are as surprised and dismayed as we are about the pay-off of 700 men at the highly technologically advanced Cummins factory at Shotts, could there none the less be a statement about what the British Government and the Scottish Office have said to the American owners about the decision, which will create havoc among a highly skilled and very loyal work force?

Mr. Newton: I well understand how disappointing the news has been for the work force in Shotts, which has,

I know, been well regarded by the company. The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that Scottish Office Ministers tried to persuade the company to change its mind. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland met the local Member, the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), this morning. The hon. Gentleman may wish to know, if he does not know already, that Ministers have arranged to meet the company management tomorrow.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I support the call for a debate on the European Court of Human Rights, because it seems that that institution is losing sight of the high ideals that led to its establishment soon after the last war, not least by this country? It seems intent on producing rulings that let loose young murderers and pay the expenses of IRA bombers.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend can manifestly add, and has added, his voice to the representations that have already been made. I shall draw his comments to the attention of those concerned.

Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Leader of the House been moved, as I have, by the search of Chief Gcaleka from the Transkei, who is seeking the head of the last Xhosa king, Hintsa, which, I understand, was blown off by a British Army officer in 1835? That is a whole new concept of head hunting. There are several such macabre relics in British museums and institutions. We should have a debate on the matter, because they are sad tokens. It is barbaric for us to retain them when a country wants them to be repatriated.

Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman went from a light-hearted mode to a more serious one, I shall make sure that those points are drawn to the appropriate Minister's attention. Until he became more serious, I had been tempted to say that if he would offer me his head on a plate, I would allow a debate.

Mr. Barry Field: May we have an early debate on the future of the local government ombudsman service? I believe that only two hon. Members, of whom I was one, submitted evidence to the recent inquiry. I am horrified by the suggestion that the service might be done away with or reconstituted so that local people have to go via a councillor. Many hon. Members believe that such an arrangement would be much too cosy with council officers. We regard the local ombudsman service as an independent arbiter in matters that can generate considerable heat locally.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that there will be much sympathy with that. In the first half of his question, my hon. Friend confirmed—not to my surprise—what an assiduous Member he is.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Is not it urgent that we discuss the perverse results of the habitual residence test, which was approved by the House on the basis that it was designed to stop abuses by foreign nationals of our social security system? Now, 8,000 British citizens have been denied all benefits, even on the basis of hardship, because of the operation of the rule. Four of them are my


constituents, who have paid into national insurance and tax schemes for many years. That was not what the House intended.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman, who is an assiduous attender at business questions, will probably recall that I was asked about that very matter by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) last week. I refer him to the answer that I gave her.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May I support the calls for a debate on the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights? I have already had strong objections from my constituents to the possibility of decisions on the future of, say, the murderers of Jamie Bulger and Myra Hindley being taken somewhere other than where they should be taken—that is, in this country and by our Home Office.

Mr. Newton: I shall pass on those comments, but cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister's questions.

Mr. Roy Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the road programme, with particular reference to the western orbital route, a much-criticised road proposal that adversely affects my constituency? That would be an opportunity both to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on postponing the road proposal and to encourage him to take the further step of striking it out from the programme completely.

Mr. Newton: I shall bring those representations to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. John Marshall: May I add my voice to the calls for an early statement on the siting of the millennium exhibition? Many people believe that it

should, like the Festival of Britain, be in London, which has by far the best tourist infrastructure, transport, theatres and hotels and, as the capital city, is the obvious site.

Mr. Newton: It is just as well that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who was sitting immediately in front of my hon. Friend, has had to leave the Chamber, but I shall add those representations to the others that I need to pass on.

Mr. Nigel Evans: May we have a debate on the repercussions for the economy of the north-west, especially in Lancashire, which would follow if we were to carry out the recommendations of early-day motions 436 and 413 relating to the export of arms to Indonesia?
[That this House condemns the continued denial of the rights of the people of East Timor by the Indonesian government; notes with concern the fact that, in spite of 10 UN resolutions over the past 20 years, Her Majesty's Government continues to support the genocidal actions of the Suharto regime including by the morally and legally reprehensible provision of export licences allowing British Aerospace to sell Hawk jets to Indonesia; believes that the Scott Inquiry team should be asked to investigate the role of the British Government in allowing sales which are contrary to international and national guidelines; and finally calls for the immediate cancellation of the delivery of the Hawk jets and all other weapons to Indonesia until such inquiry has taken place.]
I refer not only to the jobs of people who work at British Aerospace at Warton and Samlesbury in my constituency, a highly skilled work force of which I am proud, but to those at several smaller contractors that supply British Aerospace. The only people who would rub their hands if we were to cancel the Hawk order and other defence contracts with Indonesia would be the manufacturing industries of France, Germany, Italy and other countries that would benefit.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, like my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), makes an important point, which I hope will be reflected upon by the Opposition.

Points of Order

Mr. Bryan Davies: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to raise a gross breach of the conventions of the House and of the way in which we seek to represent our constituents. I have told the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) that I would raise the matter. I am sorry that he is not in his place.
I have received several complaints from my constituents that personalised letters have been sent to many of them above the signature of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth. In addition to containing tendentious Liberal Democrat propaganda, they include a leaflet entitled, "For Help and Advice". Underneath is a photograph and the words, "Chris Davies MP". There was also a questionnaire on local and national matters. A freepost envelope is enclosed with the address "Chris Davies MP", in which the questionnaire can be returned. If the questionnaire is returned, the hon. Gentleman writes to the individual, my constituent, who has corresponded with him. I consider that to be the grossest interference with the rights of my constituents and with my rights as their elected representative.
My constituents are clearly being misled, because the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth is not their representative and cannot carry out actions in the House on their behalf, as suggested by the material. I ask for your guidance, Madam Speaker, on how I may make progress in ensuring that that activity ceases and that the conventions of the House are upheld.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Several hon. Members will be suffering from that problem because of the redistribution of constituency boundaries. I am in a similar position, because my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) represents an area that is due to become part of the constituency for which I expect to stand. I have been scrupulous in not contacting his constituents and have referred letters to him because he is the Member of Parliament. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) did not pursue the same course.

Mr. Barry Field: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I did not think that the hon. Gentleman could have such a problem with his constituency.

Mr. Field: That is why I rise to make a point of order. I am sure that you would be amazed to know, Madam Speaker, as keeper of good order and discipline in the

House, that the Isle of Wight is not subject to boundary redistributions, yet a Liberal Democrat spokesman regularly describes himself as the parliamentary spokesman to the people of the Isle of Wight and sends out questionnaires in that way. That is a total misrepresentation. I very much support the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies). The Liberal Democrats are a bunch of poltroons and you should send them out.

Madam Speaker: The House will know that I have often given guidance on these matters. Of course, I deprecate the activities of any Member who interferes in such a way in another's constituency. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) is a relatively new Member. Hon. Members should be mature and sensible enough to resolve such matters among themselves. I see that the Liberal Democrat Whip is in his place and has heard the exchanges. I am sure that he will use his good offices to ensure that there is no recurrence.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to ask you a question, arising from what my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) said, about Monday's business and vote.
It is important that people outside understand what we mean and how we vote. As I understand it, Madam Speaker—you will correct me if I am wrong—if a vote is on a Government motion for the Adjournment, the usual practice, although it may not be followed on Monday, is that the Government vote against that motion, in order to protect their business, so presumably on Monday we shall vote for the motion.
To many people, that is an almost Alice-in-Wonderland position, which they do not understand, and one can hardly blame them. I wonder whether many Members of the House, who may not be present, understand the technicalities.
Of course you are not, and cannot be, responsible for which motions are tabled, Madam Speaker, but the fact that there will not be a proper Government motion regarding the Scott report, and that there will be a technical motion, will cause difficulties and confusion, not necessarily in the House—with the Whips about and so on—but to millions of people outside. Such people have a duty, which they carry out, to want to know about important public business. Surely they cannot be criticised, and it will certainly look like Alice in Wonderland when the Government move a motion and then vote against it.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct, in that on Monday, if the Opposition wish to oppose the Government, they will vote aye, and the Government will vote no, but I think that the hon. Gentleman, with respect, underestimates our electorate. I think that they know precisely what goes on here. According to my mailbag, I can tell him that that is absolutely correct.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

That the draft Financial Assistance for Industry (Increase of Limit) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 25th January, be approved.

CONTRACTING OUT

That the draft Contracting Out (Functions in relation to the provision of Guardians Ad Litem and Reporting Officers Panels) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.—[Mr. Knapman.]

Question agreed to.

ESTIMATES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 131(2),

That this House agrees with the Report [20th February] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Knapman.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Asylum and Immigration Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 8

RESTRICTIONS ON EMPLOYMENT

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 5, line 22, after 'that', insert '(a)'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government amendments Nos. 45 and 46.

Amendment No. 57, in page 5, line 27, at end insert—

Provided that no order made pursuant to this subsection shall specify a birth certificate as a relevant document for the purposes of a defence under this section until statutory provision has been made requiring applicants seeking the issue of a birth certificate—

(a) to complete a comprehensive application form,
(b) to state their relationship to the subject of the required certificate, and
(c) to state the purpose for which the certificate is to be used.'.

Mr. Kirkhope: A key argument made by many respondents to our consultation document was that it was important for employers to know exactly what they needed to do to establish a defence. The three Government amendments to clause 8 are designed to ensure that employers can be clear in their minds about two key points.
The first point was raised in Committee, and we promised to consider it. We now propose that the wording in subsection (3) be amended as set out in amendment No. 45. Our consultation document referred clearly to employers seeing documents which appear, prima facie, to belong to the person offering himself or herself for employment. Subsection (3), however, simply refers to documents relating to the person concerned. It was suggested that that formulation would require employers to make more elaborate efforts to establish the true identity of potential employees.
Amendment No. 45 will ensure that no more is expected of employers than is outlined in the consultation document. They will be able to assume that a document belongs to and relates to the person proffering it unless there is a good reason that would suggest that that is not the case.
Amendment No. 46 will amend subsection (3) to allow us to give employers the clearest possible indication of what they will need to do, when they have seen a document, to provide themselves with a defence. The current draft simply allows us to specify documents that would establish a defence, but does not allow us to be specific about other important details. In some cases, as our consultation document said, we would expect employers to take a copy of a document to establish a defence. In the case of the P45 defence, an employer


would simply need to have retained—as he is required to at present in any event—part of the form. Obviously, it would be inappropriate to include in the Bill detailed points about the taking of photocopies or the scanning of documents using information technology equipment. Nevertheless, amendment No. 46 will enable us to leave employers and the courts in no doubt about what is required.
Amendment No. 44 is a minor drafting amendment to subsection (3) which is desirable because of the introduction of amendment No. 46.
Before I leave amendments Nos. 44 to 46, I should tell the House that we have been giving further consideration to an argument that was made in Committee about the possibility that racketeers would abuse the statutory defences. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) yesterday recognised the need to deal with such people.
We certainly do not want unscrupulous employers to have a defence when they know that the person employed is not entitled to work or when they have been actively involved in producing false documentation for that employee. We need to ensure that racketeers are guilty of an offence in those circumstances. We shall examine the matter carefully. If we consider that clause 8 needs strengthening, we shall table an amendment to that effect in the other place, but legitimate employers will have nothing to fear and no additional burdens will be placed on them. I commend those minor but important amendments to the House.
I should like to give my reaction to amendment No. 57, which has not yet been moved. It would prevent an order made under subsection (3) from including a birth certificate as a specified document until the Government have implemented certain proposals contained in the White Paper "Registration: Proposals for Change", relating to controls on the issuing of certified and uncertified birth certificates.
The amendment reflects anxieties, which the Government share, about the comparative ease with which certified copies of birth certificates can be obtained and the fact that such certificates can be used to establish false identities. Several hon. Members mentioned the issue in Committee.
The procedure for obtaining certified copies of birth certificates is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health because he is responsible for the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, whose White Paper discussed the problem and possible ways of solving it. We are discussing the issue.
The Government understand and share the fundamental concern that lies behind the amendment, and we shall bear that concern in mind when we draft the final version of an order under the clause. We do not believe, however, that the significant but fairly small-scale abuse that can and does take place will necessarily justify excluding birth certificates from the list of specified documents. We do not consider it appropriate for such an exclusion to be contained in the Bill.
I hope, therefore, that Opposition Members will agree to withdraw that amendment.

Mr. Max Madden: I beg leave to move amendment No. 57, standing in my name and that of a number of right hon. and hon. Friends.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need to move the

amendment at this moment. If it were to be moved, it would be done separately after the others have been considered.

Mr. Madden: As the Minister said, the amendment is designed to block an important loophole that was first revealed in the book "The Day of the Jackal", whereby it is lawful and extremely easy for any person to obtain the birth certificate of any other person, living or dead, and to assume that person's identity.
The Government have expressed concern about the loophole—and expressed the intention to legislate to block the loophole—since 1990 and the publication of the White Paper "Registration: Proposals for Change", in which the idea of making personation more preventable was suggested. The White Paper made several recommendations to regularise procedures for obtaining birth certificates, which are contained in amendment No. 57; sadly, the Government have failed since 1990 to provide time for appropriate legislation to be brought before the House.
Action to make personation more difficult has become tangled up in the controversy concerning identity cards. The amendment gives the Government the opportunity to take the action that they say they wish to take to stop the ease with which people may acquire a birth certificate—and the identity—of someone else, either alive or dead. This matter has been of long-standing concern to hon. Members, and I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who has been campaigning on this issue for several years, and to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who has brought this matter to our attention in the past.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), reconsiders the Government's attitude to amendment No. 57. Birth certificates are specified in orders relating to the Bill as providing employers accused of employing illegal entrants with a defence. The amendment has three aims: first, in applying for a birth certificate, a person would have to complete a comprehensive application form; secondly, a person would have to state his or her relationship to the subject of the required certificate; and, thirdly, a person would have to state the purpose for which the certificate would be used.
These seem to be perfectly reasonable requests to be made of someone applying for a copy of a birth certificate. We have been waiting a long time for such legislation. I strongly urge the Minister—if he is unable to accept the amendment—to consider, in another place, coming forward with an appropriate vehicle to realise the intentions of amendment No. 57.

Mr. Kirkhope: I have already stated that the Government are considering the position. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he requires, but I acknowledge that there is a problem with birth certificates for these proceedings, as well as for agencies and organisations that rely on birth certificates as evidence, such as building societies, passport agencies and insurance companies. It is a problem of a general nature and the Government are examining it and are concerned to deal with it as soon as possible.

Mr. Madden: The Minister is clearly reinforcing the case that urgent legislation must be introduced. He should


come forward, in another place, with a suitable way of introducing the intentions that lie behind the amendment, and that clearly are of concern to all hon. Members. I hope that a way can be found to introduce these long-awaited reforms during the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I identify with the hon. Gentleman's points because I have had a most distressing case in my constituency. People who are personated believe that their lives have been wrecked—as is the case for one of my constituents and, no doubt, for the constituents of other hon. Members. One of my constituents had the experience of someone going to St. Catherine's house, getting access to her birth certificate, assuming her identity and undertaking all sorts of fraudulent activity.
My constituent had no legal means of addressing the situation. The person who committed the offence was taken to court, found guilty of gross and serious impersonation—and much worse—and sentenced to imprisonment for three months. She was released after six weeks and has continued to use the name of my constituent, who has since been through a pregnancy, which was not easy for her and which added to her distress. She is at the end of her tether and feels that nothing can be done.
I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), to give some ground. There is a great need, even if only for a small number of people—that is what a democracy is all about—to address this problem. The amendment is one way of addressing it. I look to my hon. Friend to offer some way forward—in another place, if it cannot be done now, or by some formula that has a measurable time span, which will not kick the issue into the long grass for ever. That would cause my constituent, and the constituents of other hon. Members, distress that I could not live with.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I have read about the situation affecting the constituent of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), and I feel for him. It is unbelievable that something like that can happen in this modern day. I support amendment No. 57. I have in my hand the birth certificate of a young girl named Jennifer, who was born in Birmingham at 6 am on 3 October 1967. I also have in my hand the death certificate of Jennifer, which is dated 4 October 1967. Jennifer and her twin did not survive more than 24 hours.
Hon. Members may not be surprised to learn that on 6 May 1988 a national insurance number was issued to Jennifer; on 5 December 1992 a British visitors passport was issued; and on 25 November 1993 a full British passport was issued. All the details were the same—the names of the parents, the name of the hospital of birth and the date of birth. For all intents and purposes, this person was Jennifer—who survived for less than 24 hours.
It is difficult to describe the distress suffered by the parents of Jennifer—who died almost 30 years ago—when a Home Office investigator knocked on their door, having tracked them down, to explain what had happened. I do not criticise the Home Office investigation unit. It

discovered this fraud as a result of a random check of one year's British visitor passport applications at one post office. The death certificate was discovered. It took quite a while to track down the now elderly couple, who were pensioners and who had had several more children. Thirty years after the twins had died, someone decided to impersonate Jennifer—someone claimed that she was Jennifer. She could not possibly claim to be the birth child of the couple, but she stuck it out for months before her true identity was discovered.
As a result of looking into this case, of contact with the Home Office and of parliamentary questions, I became aware of the White Paper. I had not been aware of the proposals; but when I looked at the detail, I was reminded that there had been a proposal to change the marriage laws so that people could get married in a submarine or somewhere. In answer to parliamentary questions, I was referred to the proposals in Command Paper 939. However, none of the parliamentary answers in 1995 said that the White Paper was dated 1990. Only when I examined it did I realise that it was six years old.
The Government have a problem: the White Paper, which followed a Green Paper, made it clear that they had taken on board the criticisms in the Green Paper. Paragraph 6.10 of the document states:
In essence, the right to buy certified copies of events will be more tightly controlled".
Paragraph 6.11 states:
Statutory provision will be made for the issue of non-certified copies of entries in the recent records and, instead of the present entitlement to a certified copy, all applicants will be entitled to non-certified copies … However, those requiring certified copies will have to complete a more comprehensive application form resembling that for a passport. Applicants will be required to identify themselves, state their relationship to the subject … and the purpose … for which it is required. They will also be asked to give their address".
It does not deny access to people wishing to check their historical family records. However, the procedures were tightened.
St. Catherine's house issues almost 250,000 certified birth certificates per year. In answer to a parliamentary question from me, the then Under-Secretary for Health, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), replied:
In 1994 the Registrar General issued 245,961 full birth certificates".—[Official Report, 13 March 1995: Vol. 256, c. 399.]
I received another answer from the Department of Health on 31 March 1995. The then Under-Secretary said that the forms would be redesigned and that people applying at St. Catherine's house would
also be required to state their relationship to the subject of the required certificate and the purpose for which the certificate was to be used … the application forms now in use by the Registrar General ask for this additional information, but applicants cannot. at present, be obliged to provide the answers".—[Official Report, 31 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 814.]
It is possible—as I have proved more than once—to walk into St. Catherine's house, not fill in the form properly and still be given a certificate. I visited St. Catherine's house to check out the procedure a year ago and I went again yesterday and today. The application form currently in use does not conform with what the Under-Secretary told me on 31 March. The form does not require applicants to state their relationship to the person whose


birth certificate it is: they are simply asked whether they are applying for their own certificates. Applicants are not asked whether it is a family birth certificate.
I took up the matter with the Prime Minister last May. The Government have identified the problem: they know about "The Day of the Jackal" loophole. They commissioned a Green Paper, followed by a White Paper, to examine an issue that cannot be contentious in this place. Yet, six years later, there is no legislation. The Prime Minister wrote to me on 23 May last year to say that some of the measures to which I had alluded had been implemented. He continued:
It remains the Government's intention to introduce the necessary legislation to implement the remaining White Paper proposals, when Parliamentary time permits".
I have been a Member of Parliament for nearly 22 years—it has been a privilege every day—but the last two parliamentary Sessions have been the lightest in legislative terms that I can recall. A short Bill—a private Member's Bill or a Government Bill—could deal with the matter. We could dispense with it in a few days. There is no problem: the snags have been ironed out already in the Green and the White Papers.
I cannot see why we do not send a signal to organised crime. It is not a case of one or two people playing around—although the hon. Member for Ealing, North has highlighted a particular difficulty. Organised crime is clearly involved. Procuring a birth certificate is only the beginning of creating a personality—I understand that it is described as creating a "legend". Although the birth certificate states that it cannot be used as proof of identity, no one takes any notice of that. If one offers a birth certificate along with other documents, one can get a national insurance number, open bank accounts and get one's name on the electoral register. People can create false personalities and cause mayhem. I cannot understand why the loophole has not been closed.
I shall give another example of a constituency case that was drawn to my attention only a few weeks ago. I made inquiries about a constituent who had been involved in some illegal activities and had been caught. I received a letter from the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), which is pertinent to the thrust of the debate. I shall refer to my constituent as "Mr. A". The letter states:
Furthermore, Mr. A. was convicted on 28 March 1994 of three counts of theft and forgery and was sentenced to nine months in prison on each count to be served concurrently. He was arrested by police on 7 May 1993, having produced a British birth certificate that was not his in order to secure employment with the Department of Employment since 1990. Whilst so employed, he had obtained approximately £13,000.
That person was found guilty of fraud against the Department of Employment, and he got his job by offering a false birth certificate.
There is clearly a problem with false birth certificates. Although it may not be possible to close the loophole in the Bill in the other place, I do not believe that, six years after the publication of the White Paper, it is impossible to put before the House the clauses necessary to close that loophole. Such legislation could be debated fully—it is proper that that should occur—receive Royal Assent, and be on the statute book before the close of play in summer. The Government intend to clear all legislation by that time—for reasons that I will not go into, but will be obvious to everyone with a passing interest in politics in this country.
I do not believe that it is not possible to do that. The Minister will have to give me a better reason than the statement, "The Government are still considering it." The White Paper proposed such legislation six years ago. I am aggrieved about the matter because some of my constituents are affected by people who are misusing the system and obtaining birth certificates to create false personalities. My constituents and I demand action.

Mr. David Alton: I support the amendments. I assure the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) that his persistent campaign on the issue has not gone unnoticed. His efforts, and those of the hon. Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), should commend themselves to the Government and command all-party support.
It is ironic that only yesterday we were told that a heavy hand should be raised against the 10,000 people who were supposedly working illegally in this country and using false documents to secure those jobs. Today we have an opportunity to do something about those who are culpable of working illegally and using the most unacceptable methods. As has been said, they are causing grievous distress to the people whom they have impersonated or to their families.
It seems bizarre that in amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 46, tabled by the Under-Secretary, we are now saying that if a document looks official in some way, we will not prosecute. That shows that the Government are willing to be more reasonable than they were even yesterday. However, the Government are not prepared to do anything about the one document—a false birth certificate—that we know might be falsely held and used illegally.
As the hon. Member for Perry Barr said, a statement was made to the House about that problem as long ago as February 1990. In answer to a question from the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), the Government replied:
Nearly all of the changes envisaged will require legislation for their implementation, and the Government hope to introduce this at an early date".—[Official Report, 1 February 1990; Vol. 166, c. 353.]
I hope that the Government Whip's office is a little more efficient about other matters than it has been in implementing the reply that the hon. Gentleman received in 1990. In 1995, the Prime Minister said that the need for legislation:
has not been lost between the Home Office and the Department of Health".
In an article in the Evening Standard on 13 December 1995,
A Home Office spokeswoman said she was aware that procedures had been tightened. She said: 'There have been some occasions when people applied for replacement birth certificates and other certificates which haven't necessarily been replacements for their own. We have picked up 10,000 people working illegally last year. Primarily it is birth certificates that are used.'
The legislation proposes every possible way of tackling refugees and asylum seekers, but it does not tackle the problem that the Government say is primarily to blame. Something should be done about it and amendment No. 57 provides an opportunity to do so. If the Government cannot give that assurance today, I hope that they will have the sense to do so in another place.

Mr. Jack Straw: I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on their persistent campaign to bring the matter to public attention and to the attention of the House.
Reliable and secure certification of identity is fundamental to the operation of a democracy such as ours. Without it, people cannot claim their rights. Moreover, there is an open encouragement to the fraudulent access to rights to which people are not entitled. Having examined its background, I am quite astonished by the Government's complacency on the issue. They accept that there is a problem, but they sit on their hands when sensible proposals are made—not by us, but by Ministers—to deal with it.
It is not a controversial issue between the parties. We have said before and I say again that we shall co-operate fully with the Government in putting legislation on the statute book, either within the Bill or separately, before the summer. If Ministers are wondering why their motives in bringing forward employer checks are open to question, they need look no further than the gaping hole in the regime. On one hand, they impose criminal sanctions on decent, hard-working small business people; on the other hand, they are faced with a complete scandal by which people can evade those controls to obtain jobs and other benefits, and although proposals have been ready and waiting in a White Paper for five years, following a Green Paper two years previously, they take absolutely no action.
Action is required. Without it, the continuing scandal of people gaining access to rights, including benefits and jobs, will continue. We want it stopped and we want the Government to accept our offer to have it stopped.

Mr. Kirkhope: I am grateful to everybody for their contributions in the short debate. There was certainly a general feeling of sympathy, and I shall undertake to draw our exchanges to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who is aware of the matter, as I explained earlier.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I should like briefly to point out to my hon. Friend that the cases about which we have heard have largely been resolved, but the person who impersonated my constituent was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, served only three weeks and is now impersonating her again. She ought to be deported, but no one knows from which country she comes and she says that she does not know either. Those extra difficulties make the matter even more urgent.

Mr. Kirkhope: I thank my hon. Friend for that. As I said, I shall draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the details of this evening's debate.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 45, in page 5, line 25, leave out 'related' and insert
'appeared to him to relate'.

No. 46, in page 5, line 27, at end insert 'and
(b) either the document was retained by the employer, or a copy or other record of it was made by the employer in a manner specified in the order in relation to documents of that description.'—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Clause 9

ENTITLEMENT TO HOUSING ACCOMMODATION AND ASSISTANCE

Amendments made: No. 47, in page 6, line 2, leave out from beginning to 'immigrant' in line 3 and insert
'no tenancy of, or licence to occupy, housing accommodation provided under the accommodation Part is granted to an'.

No. 48, in page 6, line 32, at end insert—
' "licence to occupy", in relation to Scotland, means a permission or right to occupy;
tenancy", in relation to England and Wales, has the same meaning as it has in the Housing Act 1985.'.—[Miss Widdecombe.]

Clause 10

ENTITLEMENT TO CHILD BENEFIT

Mr. Doug Henderson: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 6, leave out lines 39 to 41 and insert—

"(1) No person to whom subsection (2) below applies shall be entitled to child benefit for any week unless she satisfies prescribed conditions.

(2) This subsection applies to a person who under the Immigration Act 1971 requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom who—

(a) is not a person who has been granted indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or
(b) is not a person who has been recognised as a refugee, or
(c) is not a person who has been granted exceptional leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or
(d) is not a dependant of a person falling within the exceptions set out in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above; 

whether or not such leave has been given.".'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 10, in clause 12, page 7, line 9, leave out from 'means' to end of line 11 and insert—

'(a) for the purposes of section 8, a person who under the 1971 Act requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (whether or not such leave has been given) and who has not been recognised as a refugee; and
(b) for the purposes of section 9, a person who under the 1971 Act requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom who—

(i) is not a person who has been granted indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or
(ii) is not a person who has been recognised as a refugee, or
(iii) is not a person who has been granted exceptional leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or
(iv) is not a dependant of a person falling within the exceptions set out in sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) or (iii) above; 
whether or not such leave has been given.'.

Mr. Henderson: When clause 12 was discussed in Committee, there was much concern about the definition of an immigrant and who would be caught under the provision. Clause 12 gives the Secretary of State power to make that definition by order. There was considerable anxiety that, some persons, who are effectively British citizens—having lived here for most of their lives, having paid taxes for 20 or 30 years, having sometimes served with British forces and having made a major contribution


to the economy—could suddenly be classified as immigrants under the new definition and, in some circumstances, no longer be entitled to housing assistance or child benefit. There was a lengthy discussion about just what circumstances would apply in relation to clauses 10 and 12.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 would introduce minimum definitions of those who would not be excluded. The three categories would be:
a person who has been granted indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom … a person who has been recognised as a refugee … a person who has been granted exceptional leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom
and the dependants of persons in those categories.
I do not know whether the Government are yet able to issue a precise definition of an immigrant for the purposes of the Bill, covering all circumstances. Perhaps the Minister has something up her sleeve. If not, and there is still the confusion that there was in Committee, there is a case for providing at least a minimal classification of who would not be covered by the definition of an immigrant in clause 12.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): If there was any confusion in Committee, it could only have been in the mind of the hon. Gentleman. There was a very full debate in Committee, the substance of which I repeat now. The purpose of clause 10 is to bring child benefit into line with the other social security benefits for people from abroad, as set out in the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1995.
Amendment No. 9, would subvert that purpose. It would fix the entitlements of some immigrants in primary legislation, whereas regulations would continue to be needed to prescribe entitlement for others.
I do not see why Opposition Members are so intent on removing consistency from the legislation. We made very clear in Committee how we intend to use the powers under clause 10 and we have given the House details of the groups who will retain entitlement to child benefit. I am prepared to run through them again but, to save time, the Opposition probably do not want me to do that.

Mr. Henderson: Can the hon. Lady confirm that the categories mentioned in the amendments are covered one way or another by her intentions?

Miss Widdecombe: I was about to do just that—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will hold on. I take it that he does not want me to read out the list of those who would be entitled and those who would not.

Mr. Henderson: If the hon. Lady can answer yes to my question, I shall excuse her from that onerous task.

Miss Widdecombe: We have given the House details of the groups who will retain entitlement to child benefit. The hon. Gentleman should now listen very carefully. They will include all the people from abroad specified in amendment No. 9 and more besides. The additional groups are all those—as I explained in Committee—covered by reciprocal and EC agreements.
It seems to us logical and consistent to have all the conditions for entitlement to child benefit for people from abroad set down in one place in regulations. We oppose

amendment No. 10 for precisely the same reason. We made clear, on Second Reading and in Committee, the categories of persons subject to immigration control that we intend to exclude from housing entitlement under clause 9. The main ones are those who are at present without leave and those with limited leave granted on the basis that they will have no recourse to public funds. Asylum seekers will not have access to council housing because that is a long-term resource which should be used for people entitled to live here. Asylum seekers will also be ineligible for assistance under the homelessness legislation, unless they have claimed asylum on arrival, are awaiting a decision from the Home Office and are in priority need.
I regret to have to tell the Opposition that, anyway, their amendments are defective. Amendment No. 10 would merely insert a superfluous list of categories into the definition of the term "immigrant" without substantially restricting the scope of clause 9. The same defect is also present in amendment No. 9.

Mr. Henderson: I find it strange that the hon. Lady is describing our amendments as defective. The Government have had to make dozens of changes to the original draft of the Bill. Had the Government proposed a more cogent Bill and given more explanation, it would have been possible to identify the category of immigrant referred to in clause 12 in primary legislation and not to have had to leave it to an order that the Secretary of State may issue from time to time.
On the basis of the hon. Lady's commitment that the categories intended to be covered by amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are included in her list, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1

AMENDMENTS OF THE 1971 ACT

Mr. Neil Gerrard: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 8, line 3, at end insert—

'Dependants

1A. In subsection (4) of section 1 of the 1971 Act (general principles), after the word "dependants", there shall be inserted the words "(including the spouses or interdependent partners)".'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 19, in page 8, line 3, at end insert—'Domestic workers

1A. In subsection (4) of section 1 of the 1971 Act (general principles), after the word "visitors," there shall be inserted the words "or as accompanying domestic workers,".'.

No. 2, in page 8, leave out lines 29 and 30 and insert—Interpretation—

4.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 33 of the 1971 Act (interpretation), there shall be inserted, in the appropriate place in alphabetical order, the words—

" 'interdependent partner' means a person in a genuine and continuing relationship of interdependency with one other person which involves living together and a mutual commitment to a shared life;".

(2) In subsection (4), after the'.

No. 20, in page 8, leave out lines 29 and 30 and insert—'Interpretation—

4.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 33 of the 1971 Act (interpretation), there shall be inserted, in the appropriate place in alphabetical order, the words—

" 'accompanying domestic worker' means a person who prior to his entry into the United Kingdom is employed as a domestic worker and who accompanies or joins his employer in the United Kingdom;".

(2) In subsection (4), after the'.

Government amendment No. 49.

No. 58, in schedule 2, page 10, line 21, at end insert—'Persecution on grounds of sexual orientation—
A1. In subsection 2 of the 1993 Act (primacy of Convention), after the word "Convention" there shall be added the words"; and in interpreting the Convention, for the purposes of the immigration rules, persecution by reason of membership of a particular social group shall be taken to include persecution by reason of sexual orientation.".'.

Mr. Gerrard: I tabled amendments Nos. 1 and 2 with the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who is unfortunately unable to be present.
The amendments would deal with the discrimination that currently exists in the immigration rules against gay and lesbian couples, which make no provision for any unmarried—or non-marital, to be more accurate—relationship, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Spouses and fiances are recognised, but no other non-marital relationships are explicitly recognised. Some 10 or more years ago, the Home Office recognised reality and issued policy guidelines that covered unmarried, cohabiting heterosexuals. It is, therefore, possible for an unmarried, cohabiting couple—if they are heterosexual—to obtain entry clearance as partners. Obviously, they have to produce evidence of the relationships.
In 1993, some 400 unmarried heterosexuals applied and were allowed to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of the relationships, but similar applications from gay and lesbian couples are routinely refused, despite the fact that there have been one or two immigration tribunal decisions that suggested that it would be appropriate to deal with such an application as a relationship between two people as partners. The numbers involved are quite small—in 1995, the Home Office received 60 applications from gay and lesbian people who wished to remain on the basis of a relationship. In those cases, the average length of the relationship was approximately five years and, therefore, significant and of some length.
The present official policy is to consider each application from interdependent homosexual partners on their individual merits, but permission to stay is granted only in exceptional and very compelling circumstances. The only examples of which I am aware in which permission has been granted are one or two cases in which the British partner was suffering from a terminal AIDS-related disease and the other partner was the carer. People have been allowed to stay on that basis, but even then the Home Office seems to have taken a rather tighter attitude recently and refused leave.
5.45 pm
The arguments for the amendments are fairly straightforward, and include the effects of the present policy on what are, by any standards, stable, long-standing

and interdependent relationships between people who have every intention of staying together. One example is the case of a 34-year-old man, Mark, who is a chartered accountant and senior consultant with a well-known consultancy firm, earning a good salary. In 1991, he met a 37-year-old Brazilian called Paulo who was completing his PhD in London. They lived together from 1992 and, at the time, Paulo had a work permit. When the work permit ran out, he applied to stay on the basis of the relationship, but was refused. In similar circumstances, an application by a heterosexual couple would almost certainly have been accepted. The couple had been together for four years and had a stable, interdependent relationship. Paulo is now back in Brazil.
People in such circumstances are faced with two options. One is simply to separate; the other—as undoubtedly sometimes happens—is for the foreign partner to make a marriage of convenience to stay in the United Kingdom. Nobody wants that to happen.
I see no reason why relationships of the type that I have mentioned should not be recognised. I am sure that there are a few hon. Members—fortunately, a diminishing number—who believe that no homosexual relationships should be recognised and who regard such relationships with complete distaste, but even they should acknowledge that stable homosexual relationships occur.
The amendments would provide only equality with heterosexual relationships; that is all that is required. I would expect partners to be able to produce evidence to back up their claims that they were in a relationship that they intended to be long-standing and permanent. The change would cause no great difficulty. Some other countries have already recognised same-sex relationships for immigration purposes; Australia, New Zealand and Canada have, as have a number of European countries—Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Norway. Partnership rights will probably be introduced soon in Spain. South Africa grants equal rights under the 1994 constitution to same-sex relationships. It would not be difficult or unusual if this country were to change the rules.
The amendments would clarify the immigration rules, which ought to refer to an interdependent partner, meaning
a person in a genuine and continuing relationship of interdependency with one other person which involves living together and a mutual commitment to a shared life".
As I said earlier, all non-marital relationships technically contravene the present immigration rules, which use the terms "spouse" and
fiance(e) with a view to marriage".
They do not refer anywhere to cohabitees. The amendments would tidy up the immigration rules by stipulating that long-term relationships other than marital ones ought to be recognised.
Amendment No. 58, which has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), acknowledges that individuals are persecuted for their sexual orientation, by proposing that, included in schedule 2, should be the words,
and in interpreting the Convention, for the purposes of the immigration rules, persecution by reason of membership of a particular social group shall be taken to include persecution by reason of sexual orientation.


That was discussed briefly in Committee. There are European countries in which to be homosexual is to invite persecution, so I commend my hon. Friend's amendment.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I support the powerful plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) because it is plainly right—as a matter of recognising modern realities and of justice—that the immigration rules should not discriminate against unmarried but truly interdependent partners, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. I echo my hon. Friend's point that the Government should address the question of individuals from countries in which they are liable to be persecuted for their homosexuality. It may be that amendment No. 1 covers that concern. If neither it nor any other amendment does so adequately, I hope that the Government will think carefully and constructively about tabling an amendment in the other place.
A number of countries on the Government's white list actively persecute people who engage in consenting homosexual acts. An Amnesty International report on Romania published last year stated that people there are imprisoned and treated with great severity solely for their homosexuality. In Pakistan, prison sentences of between two years and life are imposed on homosexuals, who are also flogged for the offence. India has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The Bill fails to recognise the fear and reality of such persecution.
Last year, in the case of Ioan Vraciu—a Romanian soldier whose partner was arrested and tortured for his homosexuality—a UK immigration appeal tribunal ruled that gay people could be seen as a distinct social group for the purposes of interpreting the 1951 UN convention on the status of refugees. Hitherto, the Home Office has refused to accept that proposition. Mr. Vraciu's application for asylum did not succeed, although the immigration adjudicator declared that it was
unnatural and contrary to human rights
to criminalise private gay sex.
The Government should be willing to amend the Bill, by accepting the amendments before the House or tabling amendments in the other place, to establish that serious and justified fears of persecution on the ground of homosexuality or the committal of homosexual acts are legitimate reasons for seeking asylum in the UK. The United Nations convention offers protection to people who have
a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
Gay men and women are plainly members of a particular social group, and they should be seen as such in the sense that the convention means when they have a justified fear of persecution. Such persons ought to have the protection of the law, the administration of which should be regulated by Home Office guidelines requiring sensitive and non-discriminatory handling of lesbian and gay asylum applications. People should not be discriminated against for their sexuality, any more than for their sex, race, religion or disability. The Republic of Ireland—not hitherto in the van of liberal social policy—has already legislated sensibly and humanely along those lines. In justice, we should do no less.

Mr. Henderson: I have sympathy with amendments Nos. 1 and 2, and I support amendments Nos. 19

and 20. As to the former, my hon. Friends have identified the difference of treatment of persons who are married and those who live together, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. In today's world, we should recognise social realities. Many couples around the world are not formally married but have a stable, sound and loving relationship—which the law of this country and others should recognise.
If two persons who are not formally married want to enter the UK, it is at the Home Secretary's discretion whether an application for both persons in the relationship is permitted. Often, separate applications will be made, although in some circumstances that is not possible. I understand that far more cases of heterosexual couples than homosexual couples go before the Secretary of State. I am not saying that, in the circumstances of statutory provision for entry, those statistics would necessarily be mirrored. Homosexual couples might be deterred from making an application because they do not believe that they would be successful. I cannot say that that is the case, but I would not be surprised.
There would clearly be scope for circumvention of our intention to allow genuinely interdependent couples to be treated in the same way as a married couple, so there is a need for considerable investigation by the Government, Opposition parties and individual hon. Members, in determining practical regulations to meet the concerns and sympathies that have been expressed for the search for a solution.
I am not sure that amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would provide the solution, and I have reservations about them. I certainly want further investigation. However, I sympathise with those who want to find a solution to the problem.
Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 fringe the main purpose of the Bill but are still important. They relate to persons who are employed in virtually a slave relationship by foreign citizens who are allowed entry to the UK, often as visitors. Such persons are in some circumstances permitted to bring their domestic servants, who are often closely tied to the original applicant. I have been told of domestic servants who have been physically, verbally and sexually abused, but who have been unable to do anything about their predicament—unless the person by whom they are employed agrees to return them to their country of origin. Often, servants' passports are held by their employers. Sometimes, they do not even have independent passports. That makes it extremely difficult for them to end the relationship.
The amendments do not seek regulations to govern the position of those poor people but to categorise them separately in immigration law, so that the Secretary of State can lay regulations that apply to them. If the Secretary of State is prepared to allow it, I hope that those workers will be allowed to transfer from one employer to another on exactly the same conditions as applied when they entered the country. I do not ask that they be allowed to come in as a domestic servant to someone who has made an application on a visitor's passport and be able to leave that employment to seek normal employment with another person in the United Kingdom. If they wanted to apply for employment on the normal basis, they would be free to do that; the amendments do not attempt to deal with that situation.
I hope that the Government will recognise that, in some cases, abuses that occur in this country arise from the "special circumstance". I hope that the Government will feel able to meet the concerns that have been expressed in the House.

6 pm

Mr. Harry Cohen: I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House for not being here at the start of the debate, as I was held up in my office.
I tabled amendment No. 58. I shall be brief, as I know that hon. Members have referred to it, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). My amendment refers to the persecution of a particular social group on the grounds of sexual orientation. Gays and lesbians are regarded as a particular social group, and that should be taken into account in the Bill. Persecution because of membership of that particular social group should be a reason to allow people to stay.
I tabled my amendment on behalf of the organisation Outrage! It makes a good case, which I have passed on to the Minister. It expressed great concern that three of the countries included in the Government's so-called white list actively persecute and severely punish people who are convicted of engaging in consensual homosexual activity.
Romania was condemned in an Amnesty International report in 1995 for its human rights record of imprisoning homosexuals and for torturing detainees. In Pakistan, people who engage in consensual homosexual acts are punished with prison sentences of between two years and life, and flogging. India continues to punish people who engage in consensual gay sex with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. There is no recognition whatever of the fear of persecution on the grounds of homosexuality in the United Kingdom's present political asylum legislation. Indeed, applications made on those grounds are invariably turned down.
Last year, Ioan Vraciu, a Romanian soldier—I think all of this has been mentioned, so I shall be brief—won his case. An immigration appeal tribunal ruled that gay people could be seen as a distinct social group for the purposes of interpreting the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the status of refugees. The Home Office refused to accept that argument and appealed against the decision. The Home Office lawyer, Alexandra Pond, cast doubt on Mr. Vraciu's claims and requested that doctors should test him to see whether he was really gay, which was amazing.

Mr. Gerrard: It is astonishing to think what the test might have been.

Mr. Cohen: Yes. Incredibly, her argument was accepted by the subsequent hearing and Mr. Vraciu lost his case, and so the special category for homosexuals is not currently accepted in law. It should be. Through my amendment, I hope that the Home Office will accept that. There are countries that persecute gays and lesbians, who might be seeking refugee status in this country to protect themselves from the harsh penalties that they might face there. Those countries include countries that are on the white list.
I urge the Minister to accept my amendment, or at least say that he can see that there is an argument for accepting such applications when these cases arise.

Mr. Kirkhope: We all appreciate the sincerity with which supporters of the amendments have spoken this evening, particularly the hon. Members for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), but frankly it is simply not a sensible or practical approach to set out the interpretation of the United Nations convention in domestic primary legislation.
With reference to amendment No. 58, it is ultimately for the courts to determine the interpretation of the convention rather than the Government. Sexual orientation is taken into account in the assessment of individual asylum claims where relevant, but our approach is not to make an abstract judgment as to whether homosexuals or any other set of people might or might not be regarded as a social group. Claims are considered on their individual merits in the light of all the circumstances of a particular case, and in Committee my hon. Friend the Minister of State wrote to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on a number of points, including on the question of homosexuals in relation to convention criteria. She set out the Government's position fully. The correspondence was made available to all members of the Standing Committee, and copies were placed in the Vote Office before Report began.

Mr. Alton: I had hoped that the Minister would refer to that letter. As he said, many of the issues, including the cases that, quite properly, were raised today, were referred to in Committee, and the letter was sent by the Minister of State on 31 January. It might be helpful to hon. Members if the letter were published so that they can see it properly. Members of the Committee found it helpful.

Mr. Kirkhope: I am sure that there would be no problem about having the letter placed in the Library, if that is the hon. Gentleman's wish.
I shall deal first with the drafting of amendments Nos. 1 and 2 and then set out some of the policy issues that they raise.
The acceptance of these amendments would result in common-law and homosexual relationships, which involve two people living together with a mutual commitment to a shared life, being accorded the same status as those who are married, for the purpose of immigration. The only objective test for the strength of a relationship in an immigration context is marriage. The concept of an interdependent partner is vague and ill-defined. These amendments would allow any person to claim that he or she was involved in a genuine and lasting relationship and consequently qualified for leave to remain in the United Kingdom without making the commitment to the relationship that is implicit in marriage. The introduction of the concept of an interdependent partner to the Immigration Act and immigration rules would cause difficulties of interpretation, would result in an increase in contested cases and would make the administration of immigration control more difficult than at present.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Kirkhope: I shall continue for a moment.
I said that the amendments raise policy issues. Therefore, for the convenience of the House, I shall set out details of a change in policy that we intend to make to the way in which applications for leave to enter or remain as a partner in a heterosexual common-law relationship are considered. This point arises directly from the amendments, and it seems right for us to bring it before the House on the suitable occasion of the debate on these amendments.
The number of foreign nationals seeking to remain here on the basis of a common-law relationship has increased from about 400 in 1991 to about 900 now. There is evidence that some foreign nationals are seeking to prolong their stay here by claiming to be partners in common-law relationships. The immigration rules provide for the admission of married couples and fiances who are expected to marry within a reasonable period. The rules do not provide for the admission of foreign nationals who are partners in common-law relationships. In the light of the figures to which I have referred, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has decided that the requirements of the immigration rules should be henceforth strictly applied.
A foreign national who wishes to join or remain here with a person settled here must be married to that person, except for those who qualify under the immigration rules as fiancés or fiancées. Foreign nationals who apply to enter or remain on the basis of a common law relationship can, with immediate effect, expect to have their applications refused.
It is not our intention to apply these new requirements retrospectively. But any foreign national refused leave to remain on the basis of a common-law relationship who does not leave the United Kingdom voluntarily may normally expect deportation action to be taken against him. In deciding whether deportation is the appropriate course, consideration will be given to any compassionate factors that may be present.
I shall give the House some examples of the sorts of case which have caused us concern. An applicant who was admitted as a working holidaymaker sought leave to remain as a common-law spouse. Checks of the evidence provided in support of the application revealed that the applicant was simply sharing a house with a British citizen and that no relationship existed.
In another case, a visitor sought leave to remain as a common-law spouse. Inquiries into the evidence produced suggested that what was intended was a prolonged visit so as to enable the applicant to earn sufficient money to marry in her own country.

Mr. Alan Howarth: No Opposition Member is arguing that the forms of abuse that the Minister has so recently illustrated should be condoned or that the law should be amended to enable such practices to occur.
I take up the Minister's argument that he cannot accept the amendments because they are unrealistic and impracticable. Will he comment on the fact that Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden and South Africa all include provision for lesbian and gay relationships in their immigration rules and accept the concept of the

interdependent partner, in whatever language those countries choose to use? If they find it feasible, what is the Minister's objection in principle?

Mr. Kirkhope: The hon. Gentleman must realise that we use as the basis for our immigration rules in these cases the institution of marriage—in other words, the fact that there is a marriage. It does not necessarily have always to be a United Kingdom marriage, but a marriage that is legitimate in all respects in the country where it was celebrated. We see no reason to change that position.
It was argued throughout consideration of the Bill in Committee that in our immigration rules and regulations we should look for clarity. Our proposals and my remarks this evening underline our commitment to clarity and to avoidance of doubt and misunderstanding.

Mr. Straw: I take up a separate but important issue. The Minister has said that the rules allow for settlement in appropriate circumstances of people who are already married or who are coming here to be married as fiancés or fiancées. Will he make it clear that nothing in the changes that he has announced is intended to discriminate against people who are fiancés or fiancées with the intention of marriage?
In my constituency there is a view—I try constantly to disabuse my constituents of it—that it is necessary to marry before application for settlement has been accepted so as to facilitate that application. That often leads to an application for good reasons being rejected and the woman having to remain married.

Mr. Kirkhope: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we intend to continue the arrangement that couples should be married or that there should be a fiancé or fiancée involved, with an intention to marry in the near future.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: If a woman is seeking entry into the United Kingdom and she says, "I have proof that I have had a common-law relationship with Mr. X for several years", it seems that no attention will be paid to her assertion. If, however, she says, "I am engaged to Mr. X and here is my engagement ring", it seems that that will be all right. That does not make sense to me.

Mr. Kirkhope: We have made it clear that we accept the status of a fiancé or a fiancée if that is what she or he is shown to be. As I have said, marriage is the institution which we recognise in these circumstances. It provides the only safe way, and international way, in which we can deal fairly with these matters.
Amendment No. 19 provides for the inclusion in the Immigration Act 1971 of one of several concessions, which exist outside the immigration rules, allowing people to come to the United Kingdom for various types of employment. As such, the concession sought is already covered by the reference in section 1(4) of the 1971 Act to
persons coming for the purpose of taking employment".
It would be impractical to itemise all the existing concessions in section 1(4) as many are already covered by the categories listed—for example academic visitors, voluntary workers and the lawyers' concession all come under the heading of "taking employment". It would be


illogical to mention one concession, such as domestic workers, without referring to all the others. The inclusion of existing concessions in the rules, such as domestic workers, is a separate matter and one that is still under consideration. Therefore, amendments Nos. 19 and 29 are unnecessary.

Mr. Gerrard: I am extremely disappointed with the Minister's remarks and I much regret what he appears to be doing. We shall need to read the official record carefully. My impression is that he is making things considerably worse for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. He has talked of cases where evidence was found to show that there was not a relationship and that people were not genuinely living together. That would apply equally to marriages of convenience, which we all know occur. If evidence turns up that a marriage is not genuine or that a couple who are supposedly living together are not, those situations can be dealt with. It does not matter whether it is a common law relationship.
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) that there is a need to consider the detail of the amendments and whether technically they would work, especially having heard the Minister's remarks. We might need to think about alternative amendments to be tabled and introduced in another place. Having said that, I do not wish to press amendment No. 1 to a Division.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 49, in page 8, line 30, leave out
'In subsection (4) of section 33 of the 1971 Act (pending appeals),'
and insert
(1) In subsection (1) of section 33 of the 1971 Act (interpretation), for the definitions of "entrant" and "illegal entrant" there shall be substituted the following definitions—

"'entrant' means a person entering or seeking to enter the United Kingdom and 'illegal entrant' means a person—

(a) unlawfully entering or seeking to enter in breach of a deportation order or of the immigration laws, or
(b) entering or seeking to enter by means which include deception by another person,
and includes also a person who has entered as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above;".
(2) In subsection (4) of that section,'.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Schedule 3

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 50, in page 12, line 8, column 3, at end insert—
'In Schedule 2, in paragraph 5(1), the words "Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below,".'.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Order for Third Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Government are committed to maintaining an open and tolerant society that is free from the blight of racial discrimination. We want a society that fosters respect for and understanding of the diverse cultures and backgrounds of all people lawfully present in this country. Firm but fair immigration control is a necessary pre-condition for such a society.
The Government are determined to maintain the United Kingdom's honourable tradition in providing a safe haven for those fleeing persecution. We shall continue to meet in full our international obligations, including those under the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees.
The Bill aims to improve our asylum and immigration procedures in three ways: first, by strengthening our ability to deal rapidly with bogus claims; secondly, by countering the economic incentives to illegal immigration; thirdly, by combating the despicable crime of immigration racketeering.
The Bill received its Second Reading on 11 December. Since then, the need for its asylum provisions has become even more pronounced. The number of asylum claims in the last quarter of 1995 was a record, bringing the total for the year to nearly 44,000, which is nearly double the level of claims in 1993. The number of asylum seekers awaiting a decision or appeal has risen to 84,000, and the average time for completing a new asylum claim now stands at 19 months. Queues and delays of that magnitude represent a threat to the integrity of our immigration control. The measures that we are proposing in the Bill are essential to prevent abuse and to allow us to give help speedily to genuine refugees.
To enable us to deal quickly with unfounded claims, the Bill provides for designation of countries of origin, wider criteria for certifying claims as without foundation and a more robust application of the safe third country rule. We have also amended the Bill to deal with the growing number of asylum claims in which the applicant has destroyed his documents or persists in maintaining that forged documents are genuine.

Mr. Madden: Can the Home Secretary tell the House when the Foreign Secretary expressed his satisfaction at the inclusion of India and Pakistan in the list of designated countries?

Mr. Howard: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date, not least because no final decisions have been taken, and will not be taken, as it is necessary to follow the procedures set out in the Bill. In consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend, the Foreign Secretary, I have listed the countries that we are currently minded to designate. It is right that we should have done so for the convenience of Parliament as it considered the Bill.
Other western European countries have strengthened their legislation since Parliament last enacted an asylum Bill in 1993. It would be very unwise for us to allow this country to be seen as a soft target. Asylum claims have been falling across Europe for the past two years but rising sharply in this country. We now receive the highest number of asylum claims of any country in Western Europe, apart from Germany. The key proposals in the Bill are already in place elsewhere in Europe. Designation of countries where there is no serious risk of persecution, fast-tracking manifestly unfounded cases, making appeals against removal to a safe third country non-suspensive


and making it an offence to employ someone who is not entitled to work are measures which have already been introduced by many of our continental neighbours.
It has been suggested that the solution to the backlogs and delays in the asylum system lies in greater resources and efficiency rather than in legislation and stricter procedures. The truth is that we must do both, and we are doing both.

Mr. Keith Vaz: The Home Secretary was not in the Chamber yesterday when I raised the important point about the way in which Ministers respond to hon. Members, although I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has written to him and I have spoken to him myself about the letter that I received from his junior Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope). Will he, please, look into the issue of the way in which Ministers respond to hon. Members? Does he agree that it is important that Members should be told of the outcome of cases which they have raised with Ministers? If he cannot give me an assurance today, will he at least meet hon. Members to discuss the matter further?

Mr. Howard: I think that my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in the debate to which the hon. Gentleman referred that she would write to him about the matter. I shall certainly discuss the matter with my hon. Friend. I understand and acknowledge the point made by the hon. Gentleman, whose company I look forward to later this evening at the Asian "Who's Who" dinner and the presentation of the Asian of the Year award.

Mr. Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I hope it is for the Chair?

Mr. Vaz: It is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I make it clear that I am not accompanying the Home Secretary; we are on different tables.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When the Chair asks a question of an hon. Member, a proper response is expected.

Mr. Howard: We have increased the number of asylum caseworkers eightfold, from fewer than 100 in 1988 to almost 800 now, and we are investing £37 million more over three years to provide even more caseworkers and adjudicators. The new short procedure in the Home Office, which does not require legislation, enables straightforward cases to be decided in three to four weeks. We are using that procedure in a growing number of cases. Overall, we have increased the number of decisions taken from 21,000 in 1994, to 27,000 in 1995, which is a 29 per cent. rise. This year, we expect to take at least 37,000 decisions, which is a further rise of 37 per cent. In January, for the first time ever, we took more than 3,000 decisions in a month.
Our major programme to introduce new information technology will reduce bureaucracy and further streamline all caseworking procedures.

Miss Emma Nicholson: The Home Secretary is speaking about the system. Does

he agree that a two-year wait when an in-country application is submitted is far too long? Does he agree that it generally takes two years before an interview opportunity is given once an in-country application has been made? Does he also agree that, once the interview is concluded, the file is put on hold for another caseworker to consider—which may take another two years—and that the second caseworker does not have the benefit of the knowledge of the first caseworker, who will have had the applicant face to face? Will the Secretary of State, therefore, look into the possibility of ensuring that the caseworker who has conducted the interview and heard the evidence first hand makes the proposal about granting asylum or otherwise? That is currently not the practice. Does he not believe that the practice that I have suggested would be fairer in terms of time and justice—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady can make a speech of her own on Third Reading. Interventions should be short.

Mr. Howard: I am told that the relevant period referred to by the hon. Lady is nine months, not two years. If she had been paying a modicum of attention, she would have heard what measures we are taking to deal precisely with the problem to which she referred in her intervention.
The output of the appeal system is also increasing dramatically. The number of appeals determined has risen from 2,500 in 1994 to 7,000 last year; but even those substantial improvements are not enough. The number of asylum applications is rising faster still; backlogs are still growing; and we are still having to deal with far too many bogus applications that should never have been made in the first place. That is why we need the asylum and employment provisions in the Bill.
The measures that we are introducing on entitlement to housing assistance are also important. Social housing is a valuable and costly resource. People whose leave to enter the United Kingdom was given on the understanding that they would make no recourse to public funds should not have access to assistance provided by local housing authorities at the taxpayers' expense, nor should those without valid leave. Those groups do not now have entitlement to social security benefits, except if they have claimed asylum on arrival and are awaiting a decision.
The Bill will enable entitlement under homelessness legislation to be brought into line with those changes. It will also enable us to ensure that people in this country with limited leave will not be entitled to council housing, which is intended to meet the long-term needs of people who are entitled to live here. It is also essential that entitlement to child benefit should be brought into line with the new policy. That will reduce public expenditure by £45 million over the next three years.
The Bill also contains substantial new measures to combat the growing problem of immigration racketeers and facilitators. Their pernicious trade undermines the integrity of our immigration control and feeds on often needy and desperate people in pursuit of misbegotten personal profit.
All the proposals in the Bill are grounded in the Government's long-standing commitment to maintaining this country's good race relations. We have consistently taken the view that that requires effective immigration control and a readiness to intervene to deal with abuses.
The Bill is fair. It is compatible with our international obligations. It involves no change in the status of those persons who are currently entitled to come here to live. It is a balanced, sensible and timely measure, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Straw: No one doubts the need to tackle the problem of bogus asylum seekers. That has never been an issue in any of our debates; what is at issue is how we should tackle the problem. The measure is unbalanced and disproportionate to the problem. It will harm race relations. It has already led to the prospect of refugee families being left without any effective support, and it could lead to a number of applicants whose applications are well founded being denied their rights under the United Nations convention on refugees, which this country voluntarily signed.
That is exactly the anxiety of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who said:
UNHCR is concerned that the proposals currently before Parliament focus on restricting access to asylum procedures in a way that may make it just as difficult for genuine refugees to enter the process as it would for fraudulent applicants.
Throughout the debate on the Bill, Ministers and Conservative Members have sought to insinuate that only a tiny minority of applicants are genuine and that all the rest are bogus, but the facts tell a different story. Four per cent. of applications are accepted as within the convention and another 19 per cent. are accepted as within the stringent tests for the granting of exceptional leave.
That leaves 77 per cent., but it does not follow for a moment that all those applications are bogus. Many are genuine and fit the Government's test of genuineness on the Scott report—the test by which Ministers who deceive the House may be exempted from responsibility. After all, that test involves a "sincere self-belief' in the genuineness of an application. Many asylum applicants, however, would meet an objective test of the genuineness of their application, as their fear of persecution is high—as I know from a constituency case with which I am dealing—even though it may not fall within the strict tests imposed by Ministers in their interpretation of the convention or in their granting of exceptional leave.
After the Bill was announced in the Queen's Speech, we said that it should be thoroughly examined under Special Standing Committee procedure. No Bill has been more in need of such scrutiny. The motives behind the Bill are open to question, the policy has not been properly settled and the Bill has been poorly drafted—much of it is simply a skeletal enabling measure, which will rely on subordinate regulations for its practical effect.

Ms Jean Corston: Is my hon. Friend interested to know that last night I lodged with the House a petition with more than 1,000 signatures, from people who attend churches in the Greater Bristol region? They believe that the Bill
will lead to refusals and deportations of legitimate asylum seekers and that the introduction of sanctions on employers will increase race discrimination in employment and lead to a worsening of race relations in this country.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the most amazing thing about the Bill is that the Churches have been unanimous in their hostility and opposition to it?

Mr. Straw: I accept what my hon. Friend says. Another remarkable thing about the Bill is that, as the debates have progressed, the opposition to it among decent, non-political people has mounted.
Within the limits of the existing Standing Committee procedure, my hon. Friends have done an excellent job in exposing the Bill's inadequacy. Ministers have had to back down on some of its least defensible parts, but much of it remains offensive. There will still be a white list, from which it will be assumed that applications are unfounded. In addition, there will still be the whitewash of so-called "country assessments". Such an assessment gave the Nigerian Government a clean bill of health even as that odious regime was preparing judicially to murder Ken Saro-Wiwa.
The Secretary of State and Ministers say that race relations will not be damaged by the Bill. They should reflect on why no one with any knowledge of race relations shares their complacency. For the first time, under the Bill, some people who happen to have black or brown skin, who do not have a United Kingdom passport, but who have made this country their home with the full approval of the Home Office, and who may have been here for years paying taxes, are to be classified as "immigrants". Ministers are taking a power to withdraw their child benefit. Ministers say that they will not use the power in that way, so why put it in such an offensive way in the Bill in the first place? In many circumstances, benefits for genuine applicants and housing assistance are to be withdrawn, placing those people at risk of destitution and increasing the burden on local authorities.
As we heard in the debate on amendment No. 57, because of the lack of security on birth certificates and national insurance documents, employee checks are unlikely to be effective in stopping the employment of workers here illegally, but they will almost certainly be effective in limiting further the employment of Asian or black people who are lawfully here, and in damaging race relations. In September, that was the view of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who said:
There is a danger that employers will concentrate checks on prospective employees whom they see as a risk, if not simply exclude them from consideration for the job. Either way there could be racial discrimination".
Her hostility to the Bill has been echoed by the Commission for Racial Equality and the Federation of Small Businesses.
The Government and the Secretary of State never cease to complain about burdening small firms and the labour market
with bureaucratic and inflexible rules, regulations, and practices"—
to quote from a little-noticed 1993 speech by the Secretary of State for the Home Department—but, against the wishes of many representative business organisations, the Government are doing just that: regulating ineffectively where they should not, but refusing to regulate where they should.
Everyone knows that many bogus applications for asylum and for settlement generally are manufactured by unofficial profit-making immigration advisers operating at the margin of criminality. At every stage, we have pushed


the case for effective regulation—with criminal sanctions—of those so-called advisers. We did so again last night, but received the usual complacent "do nothing for the moment" response from the Minister. What a bizarre spectacle the Government's position is. Ministers refuse to regulate the crooked advisers, to stop their rackets and to end the burden that those advisers place on the Home Office, but the Bill imposes a new burden of regulation on decent, hard-working small business people and the threat of criminal sanctions.
No wonder so many people have doubted the motives behind the Bill. After all, it was introduced less than three years after the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. On that occasion, Ministers not only predicted that applications would rise—that was one of their reasons for introducing that measure—but promised that the Act would cut delays to three months and increase efficiency. As the Secretary of State has just admitted and as we predicted, far from increasing efficiency and cutting delays, the Act has increased delays and decreased efficiency.
Although Ministers have always been coy about their motives, we have never had to look far for a motive, not least as the present Conservative candidate for South Cambridgeshire let the cat out of the bag in his notorious article in The Observer last September. We know that Conservatives wish to keep their motives quiet. They may be ungrateful to Mr. Andrew Lansley. On this occasion, Labour Members are grateful to him and we shall continue to repeat what he said in that article, because nothing has more graphically illustrated the real motives behind the Bill. He said:
Immigration, an issue which we raised successfully in 1992 and again in the 1994 Euro-elections campaign. played particularly well in the tabloids and has more potential to hurt.
Few measures have received such excoriation as the Bill from people who, whatever their wider political beliefs, care about justice and decent race relations in this country. For example, The Economist said that
by promoting anti-immigrant policies the government risks encouraging racism and undermining liberty. It deserves contempt, not votes, for proposing this nasty little bill.
Most damning of all, however, has been the condemnation of Mr. John Taylor, the Conservative candidate for Cheltenham, who last week complained that his party was
pandering to xenophobic voters with promises of crack-downs on immigration".
That is the truth about the Bill, which is gratuitously harmful to race relations and much of which is unworkable. We shall oppose it in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. James Couchman: I have followed the Bill since its Second Reading some months ago. I accept entirely my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's emphasis of the need for the Bill. He has given hon. Members figures for 1995, which show what a problem bogus asylum seekers present to the Home Office and to its machinery.
During the Bill's consideration, I had a constituency case that underlined just what the problem is. An Albanian wanted to stay here. When all the processes of applying for legitimate permission to stay had been exhausted, what did he do? He applied for political asylum. The

application was entirely bogus; he knew that, as did those who had advised him to submit it. Although the application has now been withdrawn, the case underlines the reasons for which my right hon. and learned Friend felt it necessary to introduce the Bill.
I remain concerned about clause 8, however. The burden on small businesses could indeed be difficult for them to bear: that is one point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). Since the Committee stage, further possible problems have been brought to my attention. It has been suggested, for instance, that people running a country pub who wanted to take on staff at short notice might have to make a 20-mile round trip in order to obtain photocopies of relevant documents. Moreover, a publican who employed someone who turned out to be an illegal immigrant could subsequently be prosecuted and receive a criminal conviction under the Bill. He could lose not just his good name, but his livelihood and his home. That should have been taken into account in Committee.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State, whose replies in Committee and on Report were always good humoured, courteous and careful. I believe that we need the Bill: as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, we need measures to surmount the huge problem of bogus asylum seekers. I for one will have no difficulty in supporting it.

Mr. Alton: I gladly associate myself with what the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) said about the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State, who always dealt courteously with matters raised by hon. Members of all parties in Committee. I do not agree with him about the Bill, however. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was right to remind us of what that dispassionate commentator The Economist said about this "nasty Bill" in December. It was The Times that said:
Britain is anything but a 'soft touch' for would-be refugees…the way to cut these costs is not to pauperise innocent refugees, and their children, along with illegal immigrants; it is to speed up Britain's sluggish asylum procedures.
That is the one thing that the Committee stage failed to achieve. We are doing nothing to speed up the procedures, but we are introducing more punitive, penalising measures against immigrants and asylum seekers.
The adversarial tone was set on Second Reading. On 11 December, by 314 votes to 287, we refused to set up a Special Standing Committee. Calls for such a Committee, which would have led to a more informed debate and might have helped to remedy significant flaws in the Bill, were rejected by the Government. That has resulted in inadequate pre-legislative scrutiny, and the problem is increased by the absence of the systematic post-legislative review that should have taken place. Only three years after passing the previous asylum Bill, here we are having to introduce more legislation. In the absence of any procedural rules—which the Committee was promised at the outset—how could hon. Members discharge their responsibilities properly?
This is a thoroughly bad Bill. It sacrifices the rights and freedoms of highly vulnerable individuals to administrative convenience and political expediency. It contravenes many of our obligations under international human rights law. It compromises the already fragile


balance between individual freedom and the ever-increasing arbitrary powers of the state, and it encourages racial discrimination and social division. It is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
This is a bad Bill because clauses 1 to 3 make it more difficult for genuine refugees to enter the asylum process, by compromising the fairness and effectiveness of the asylum appeals procedure, including the right to due process. The proposals will erode important safeguards against mistaken refusal of refugee status, and will abandon many more people to the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment to which they may be subject in their home countries. It is a thoroughly bad Bill because it creates a designated list, and extends the fast-track appeals. It has serious implications for the right to due process, compromising supposedly independent adjudications by placing certain asylum applicants within a category that prejudices their chances of a fair hearing. That violates one of the key principles of the 1951 United Nations convention on the status of refugees—that each asylum claim should be examined on its merits.
The Bill will almost certainly deter genuine asylum seekers from designated countries from trying to enter the United Kingdom and applying for asylum. Instead, they may decide to remain in hiding in their home countries, facing prosecution, torture and even death. The alternative is to attempt to enter this country illegally, which will simply exacerbate one of the problems that the Government said that they wished to address. Full appeal rights are essential for all those categories of asylum seeker, providing vital safeguards against miscarriages of justice.
This is a bad Bill because it ushers in a new era of internal immigration controls. Clauses 4 to 8 mark a dangerous intensification of such controls, without establishing corresponding safeguards against the potential for abuses of public power that those controls will foster. It is a bad Bill because it sours race relations, and erects a sophisticated system of snooping and snitching in the workplace. As well as increasing race discrimination in employment, the Bill threatens to turn all employers into yet another arm of the state, involving them in the policing of fellow members of the community and undermining the delicate balance between the freedom of the individual and the power of the big state.
This is a bad Bill for parliamentary democracy and public accountability. The Home Secretary had the effrontery to tell the House earlier that there would be parliamentary control over matters such as the designated list, but anyone who knows anything about the negative procedures in the House knows that all that will happen is that a Committee will consider the matter, and that all that the Committee will be able to do is dissent from the decision. That will place no binding power on the Home Secretary, and there will be no debate on the Floor of the House.
We have adopted all the worst features of the systems of other countries such as Germany, without introducing any of the safeguards that apply in those countries. Elected politicians are becoming increasingly irrelevant to our law-making process. One of the most dangerous trends in recent years has been the growth, and the increasing scope, of insufficiently defined delegated powers, which are often arbitrary and not subject to

adequate parliamentary scrutiny. There are three glaring examples of that in the Bill. Clause 1 leaves membership of the white list to the discretion of the Home Secretary, who is empowered to designate whatever countries he likes as posing no general or serious risk of persecution. Clause 8 empowers him arbitrarily to add to the categories of people who may not be specifically prohibited from working. Clauses 9 and 10 empower him to withdraw entitlement to housing assistance and child benefit from unspecified categories of immigrant with the wave of an executive wand.
The Bill is an arbitrary and—in places—deliberately unintelligible and inaccessible piece of legislation. It gives one Minister far too much power. The Bill and the new social security regulations are symptomatic of the inherent dangers of written rules from above. We can never hope for a fair and just asylum and immigration policy until we address the fundamental flaws of a system of government in which basic human rights are not deemed worthy of special protection in law; in which power is concentrated in the hands of the Executive; in which Parliament has become little more than a sideshow; in which checks and balances against the abuse of public power are entirely dependent on the good will of the ruling party of the day; and in which outdated notions of national sovereignty automatically take precedence over our wider obligations to the international community.
Human rights, a love of justice, a willingness to show mercy and a passion for the dispossessed are the hallmarks of a civilised society. They are not the hallmarks of this thoroughly bad Bill. I hope that it will be given a very rough ride in the other place; tonight, we should decline to give it a Third Reading.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The Bill is a deeply obnoxious piece of legislation and yet another nail in the coffin of any reputation that this country has ever had for being a haven for the civil liberties or safety of people fleeing from oppression and danger. It is rooted in xenophobia and the sort of populist jargon that successive Home Secretaries have thought necessary to use at successive Tory party conferences.
The Bill is based on a deliberate misuse of the figures for people seeking asylum. Europe has far fewer asylum seekers than any other continent in the world. This country has the fewest asylum application acceptances per head of population of any country in Europe. The problem is the creation of the Home Secretary and his cohorts in the Daily Mail and other newspapers. The Bill is yet another example of the Tory Government blaming the victim rather than looking at the causes of people seeking asylum. It represents a refusal to look at the destruction of democracy in so many places. Indeed, it involves taking part in a hunt against individuals such as Dr. al-Masari, who will be disgracefully thrown out of this country if the Home Secretary has his way.
We are coming up, by the way, to the first anniversary of the incarceration of Ademole Onibiyo in Campshill detention centre. He is there because he is unwilling to join his father—who has been missing for more than four months—in Nigeria for an unknown fate. So much for the Government's concern for the safety of individuals—either while they are in this country or when they are evicted.
The Bill makes employers into agents of the Home Office, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) pointed out. It denies housing rights to people who seek asylum. In fact, it will create a new underclass of people, who will be forced to live on charity, handouts and begging. Total deprivation beckons such people as a result of the combination of the Bill and the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1995 that go with it.
The Home Secretary has misjudged the opposition to the Bill—not only in the House, but outside. I have never known a piece of immigration legislation to generate such opposition. That opposition will be apparent on Saturday when—I hope—thousands of people will demonstrate against the Bill by marching through London to a rally in Trafalgar square. That will show that there are people in this country who care about asylum, refugees and human rights—something in which the Home Secretary clearly has no interest whatever.

Ms Diane Abbott: Ever since the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, debates on immigration have been code for a debate on race. This Bill is no different. Ministers expressed concern in Committee about the millions of refugees criss-crossing the globe. If the Government are seriously concerned about the refugee problem, they ought to look to their own policies on economic relations with the third world, their policies that quietly prop up military regimes such as that in Nigeria, and above all, their policies relating to arms sales. Those policies are at the root of the refugee problem in 1996.
One of the most unpleasant aspects of the Bill has been Conservative Members' recurrent use of the term "bogus refugees", which tends to stigmatise and criminalise all refugees. The truth is that most refugees genuinely believe that they have something to flee—even if it is the threat of starvation. The majority of refugees are no more bogus than the Home Secretary's parents were when they came here so many years ago. We might wish that this country offered the same mercy to refugees fleeing their home countries in 1996 as it did to his parents.
The Bill is a misconceived attempt to catch a very small minority of people who might be abusing the regime. It is unfair, unjust and—probably—unworkable. I have found that the more that ordinary people—black and white—know about the Bill, the more they are opposed to it. Opposition Members look to the other place to improve further the Bill and make it more just. My hon. Friends and I will be proud to vote against it.

Mr. Madden: The Bill will inevitably stir racial tension and incite racial hatred, which is why my hon. Friends and I claim that it represents the playing of the race card by the Conservative Government. It is an effort to deter people from seeking asylum in this country—even those who bear the scars of torture. It will make the lives of those who seek asylum so intolerable that they will be coerced into leaving the country.
We all know that if the Government really wanted to deal fairly and justly with those who seek asylum, they would agree that we need people and resources to ensure

that claims are examined properly and quickly, and adjudicators and accommodation, so that appeals can be heard promptly and fairly.
The Bill is flawed, nasty, bad and unnecessary. I trust that the House will deny it a Third Reading on those grounds, which the Opposition have contested throughout its stages. I hope very much that if it reaches the statute book, the next Labour Government will repeal it and replace it with fair and effective measures that accord with natural justice.

Miss Widdecombe: I shall not be long in answering the debate. I do not need to be because not one argument advanced by Opposition Members provides any good reason for opposing the Bill.
In quoting the much-maligned and much-misquoted Andrew Lansley, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said that the Bill was designed to hurt. It is and it will. It will hurt the bogus claimant who clogs up the system and makes life difficult for the genuine claimant. It will hurt the racketeer who lives off those who are vulnerable and too easily exploited. It will hurt the exploitative employer who makes a living by undercutting and exploiting people to the detriment of the genuine employer. It will hurt those who have imposed on the British taxpayer needlessly, fraudulently, frivolously, maliciously and unfoundedly.
The Bill will also hurt the Opposition, because it exposes their real attitude towards fair immigration measures. The Opposition opposed immigration measures solidly in 1981, 1988 and 1993, and they are opposing the Bill because they cannot bear firm and fair immigration measures that underpin good race relations in this country. The Bill is firm and fair. It is to the detriment of the bogus claimant—and it should be—but to the great benefit of the genuine asylum seeker. I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 250.

Division No. 60]
[18.56 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Body, Sir Richard


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Booth, Hartley


Alexander, Richard
Boswell, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Amess, David
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Bowis, John


Arbuthnot, James
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brandreth, Gyles


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Brazier, Julian


Ashby, David
Bright, Sir Graham


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Budgen, Nicholas


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Butterfill, John


Baldry, Tony
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carrington, Matthew


Bates, Michael
Carttiss, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Cash, William


Bendall, Vivian
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Beresford, Sir Paul
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Churchill, Mr






Clappison, James
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Horam, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Colvin, Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Congdon, David
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Conway, Derek
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cran, James
Jack, Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Day, Stephen
Jenkin, Bernard


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dover, Den
Key, Robert


Duncan, Alan
King, Rt Hon Tom


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Knox, Sir David


Elletson, Harold
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Legg, Barry


Evennett, David
Leigh, Edward


Faber, David
Lidington, David


Fabricant, Michael
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lord, Michael


Fishburn, Dudley
Luff, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forth, Eric
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
MacKay, Andrew


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Madel, Sir David


French, Douglas
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fry, Sir Peter
Major, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
Malone, Gerald


Gallie, Phil
Mans, Keith


Gardiner, Sir George
Marland, Paul


Garnier, Edward
Marlow, Tony


Gill, Christopher
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gillan, Cheryl
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mates, Michael


Gorst, Sir John
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mills, Iain


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moate, Sir Roger


Hague, Rt Hon William
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nelson, Anthony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hannam, Sir John
Nicholls, Patrick


Harris, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hawkins, Nick
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hawksley, Warren
Ottaway, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Page, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hendry, Charles
Pawsey, James


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Pickles, Eric





Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Sumberg, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Sweeney, Walter


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Sykes, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Temple-Morris, Peter


Richards, Rod
Thomason, Roy


Riddick, Graham
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Robathan, Andrew
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Thurnham, Peter


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Tracey, Richard


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Tredinnick, David


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Trend, Michael


Sackville, Tom
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Walden, George


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Ward, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sims, Roger
Waterson, Nigel


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wells, Bowen


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Whitney, Ray


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Whittingdale, John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Wilkinson, John


Spink, Dr Robert
Willetts, David


Spring, Richard
Wilshire, David


Sproat, Iain
Wolfson, Mark


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wood, Timothy


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Yeo, Tim


Steen, Anthony
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stephen, Michael



Stem, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stewart, Allan
Mr. Simon Burns and


Streeter, Gary
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell-Savours, D N


Adams, Mrs Irene
Canavan, Dennis


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cann, Jamie


Allen, Graham
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)


Alton, David
Chidgey, David


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Chisholm, Malcolm


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Church, Judith


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clapham, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Austin-Walker, John
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clelland, David


Barnes, Harry
Coffey, Ann


Barron, Kevin
Cohen, Harry


Battle, John
Connarty, Michael


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corbett, Robin


Bennett, Andrew F
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bermingham, Gerald
Corston, Jean


Betts, Clive
Cousins, Jim


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Cox, Tom


Blunkett, David
Cummings, John


Boateng, Paul
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Cunningham, Roseanna


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Dafis, Cynog


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dalyell, Tarn


Burden, Richard
Darling, Alistair


Byers, Stephen
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Caborn, Richard
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Callaghan, Jim
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)






Denham, John
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Dewar, Donald
Janner, Greville


Dixon, Don
Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)


Dobson, Frank
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Eastham, Ken
Jowell, Tessa

Evans, John (St Helens N)
Keen, Alan


Fatchett, Derek
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)


Faulds, Andrew
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Khabra, Piara S


Flynn, Paul
Kilfoyle, Peter


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Litherland, Robert


Foulkes, George
Livingstone, Ken


Fyfe, Maria
Lloyd, Tony (Siretford)


Galbraith, Sam
Llwyd, Elfyn


Galloway, George
Loyden, Eddie


Gapes, Mike
Lynne, Ms Liz


Garrett, John
McAllion, John


George, Bruce
McAvoy, Thomas


Gerrard, Neil
Macdonald, Calum


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Madden, Max


Godman, Dr Norman A
McFall, John


Godsiff, Roger
McKelvey, William


Golding, Mrs Llin
McLeish, Henry


Gordon, Mildred
Maclennan, Robert


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
McMaster, Gordon


Grocott, Bruce
McNamara, Kevin


Gunnell, John
MacShane, Denis


Hain, Peter
McWilliam, John


Hall, Mike
Maddock, Diana


Hanson, David
Mahon, Alice


Hardy, Peter
Mandelson, Peter


Harvey, Nick
Marek, Dr John


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Henderson, Doug
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Heppell, John
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Martlew, Eric


Hinchliffe, David
Maxton, John


Hodge, Margaret
Meacher, Michael


Hoey, Kate
Meale, Alan


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Michael, Alun


Home Robertson, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Milburn, Alan


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Miller, Andrew


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hoyle, Doug
Morgan, Rhodri


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morley, Elliot


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hutton, John
Mudie, George


Illsley, Eric
Mullin, Chris


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Murphy, Paul





Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Snape, Peter


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Soley, Clive


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Spearing, Nigel


Olner, Bill
Spellar, John


O'Neill, Martin
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Steinberg, Gerry


Parry, Robert
Stevenson, George


Pearson, Ian
Stott, Roger


Pike, Peter L
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Pope, Greg
Straw, Jack


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Suteliffe, Gerry


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Timms, Stephen


Primarolo, Dawn
Tipping, Paddy


Purchase, Ken
Touhig, Don


Randall, Stuart
Trickett, Jon


Raynsford, Nick
Turner, Dennis


Reid, Dr John
Tyler, Paul


Rendel, David
Vaz, Keith


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Walker, Rt Hon Sr Harold


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Walley, Joan


Rogers, Allan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rooker, Jeff
Wareing, Robert N


Rooney, Terry
Watson, Mike


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Welsh, Andrew


Rowlands, Ted
Wicks, Malcolm


Ruddock, Joan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Salmond, Alex
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wilson, Brian


Sheerman, Barry
Winnick, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wise, Audrey


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wray, Jimmy


Short, Clare
Wright, Dr Tony


Simpson, Alan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Mr. Joe Benton and


Smith, Liew (Blaenau Gwent)
Mrs. Bridget Prentice.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 28th February, the Speaker shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14B (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community Documents), put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Forsyth—

(i) relating to Local Government Finance (Scotland) not later than Seven o'clock, and
(ii) relating to Housing (Scotland) not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Libel Cases (Costs)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for attending the debate on behalf of the Lord Chancellor's Department. I note the presence, among others, of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who I am sure will be able to help me if I go wrong.
Live pure, speak true, right wrong".
Those are some of the words used by Charles Kinglsey's pupil John Martineau, and they apply as well to journalists and Members of Parliament as to lawyers and others.
We need to respect the law and the role of newspapers and journalists. I know that libel does not apply only to words published by journalists, for which editors take responsibility. The press has a responsibility to make available to all what is known to a few.
There is much in common among lawyers, journalists and Members of Parliament. We each have to take up causes that may be unpopular, and make judgments that may turn out to be wrong. We have to take up unpopular causes for unpopular people, and be prepared to suffer for it. An independent judiciary and legal system, the press and the freedom of Back-Bench Members to raise issues in the Chamber are important parts of democracy.
I do not want to make the debate one on the hourly rates of solicitors or barristers, or give much attention to the pay of journalists or the earnings of star columnists. I want to discover whether we can help, not only through the law but by changing the culture, to reduce the number of times that people make allegations of libel, by removing many of the causes. I do not expect that we can remove them all, but we can reduce their number.
The debate is also about resolving claims of libel, and reducing the impact of cheque books on justice. To find an example of cheque books in justice, we may consider the reasons that newspapers gave for not having pursued Anthony Blunt, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International or Robert Maxwell. If my right hon. and noble Friend Margaret Thatcher had not named Blunt as a spy in the Chamber, thus gaining privilege, he could have sued anybody who wrote about him in a newspaper or book.
Subject to the guidance of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough, we may assume that libel is saying something that is untrue and damaging about someone that is not protected by privilege. The BCCI case involved a most corrupt bank being defended from exposure because newspapers did not dare print what they thought they knew, because BCCI used the law and plenty of other people's money to impose its will on others.
For many of the final years of Robert Maxwell's life, he kept out of court by using the legal process and threatening to make that process too expensive for other people. Most people cannot do that. I must declare an interest, in that I have been involved in a small number of libel cases with the media. I do not claim any merit or advertise any vices and I do not want to go into my cases that have gone to the High Court.
I accept the advice in this week's UK Press Gazette that people who want to make a claim against editors should go to court. That referred to freelance journalists who were not paid. If a journalist who has not been paid £200, £50 or £7.50 is advised to go to court if he has a legitimate claim, someone who thinks that they have been wronged by a libel should be able to do the same.
The problem is with what newspapers decide to print, what they do with complaints and what happens after that. I would like proprietors, editors and journalists to print, as does the BBC, their guidance to themselves. What standards do they themselves want to uphold? I am not talking about the codes of the National Union of Journalists or the Press Complaints Commission, but about the standards by which each paper wishes to be judged. Each newspaper should, as do some local newspapers, say to people, "If you have a complaint, let us know, and if we think you are right, we will put it right."
When I was a junior Minister, one of the things in which I took the greatest pride was answering a parliamentary question with two sentences that fitted into one line of one column of Hansard—"I am sorry. I made a mistake." That is not frightfully difficult to say, but it can get a lot people out of an awful lot of trouble.
I have an example. I rang up a journalist about an unimportant story that appeared in a newspaper a couple of days ago. I asked him whether he had checked the story. He said that he had, and I asked him with whom he had checked it. He said that he wanted to protect his sources. I said, "I am not asking who gave you the story in the first place, but who you checked it with?"
He admitted that he had not checked it, and started to make a bit of a fuss. He said that the story had an unimpeachable source that he had always relied on, and that if it turned out to be a duff story, he would never trust that person again. He did not say in the newspaper next day that he was sorry that he had not checked it and had made a mistake, but went on with his own flannel. That is one reason why people do not bother to take things up with the press. On important issues, how such complaints are treated can matter.
We all know that we must be prepared do risky things. If we are accused—and I do not mean only MPs but members of the public, too—of things can stop us from doing the work to which we have dedicated our lives, there needs to be some redress.
Editors should declare, "When something has been written that is plainly wrong, or so ambiguous that it is wrong in some of its meanings, we are prepared to make it plain on the day of publication, or as soon as we are told that there is a complaint. If we accept that the complaint is right in part, we shall make an announcement to the Press Association, and we shall put it right in our next publication."
There should be no need to wait a week for a Sunday newspaper, or to wait three or four days for a daily. if it turns out that something has been said that is plainly wrong, editors should say so, and admit that it does not meet their standards and apologise. Most people would accept that, even after serious defamation had occurred. If there were also a minor cash settlement, that would be nice, but instant acknowledgment that something was either seriously ambiguous or plain wrong would greatly reduce the fuss, bother, stress and strain.
I should have acknowledged earlier that, in my experience, most lawyers, when consulted on such cases, try to reach a settlement as fast as possible. Lawyers do not set out to run cases on, whether they are consulted by newspapers or by individuals who may want to initiate a case against a newspaper or an individual.
There will always be threats to press freedom. As I have said in the House, the press need to have the right to be wrong. They should not always be able to prove something in court. Nevertheless, they should be able to decide when it is right to say something that they cannot prove but believe to be in the public interest, or their commercial interest, to say.
In an article in the Sunday Times on 18 June 1995, in an article headed "Method in the madness of the great libel lottery", Andrew Neil wrote:
Such are the competitive pressures—and the financial rewards for scooping the opposition—that editors would more often be inclined to publish and take the risk of having to pay the libel cost, which would be factored into the calculation.
We should not hide the fact that running a newspaper is a great commercial enterprise. I do not want to take away from newspapers either that calculation or what they consider to be their duty, in which I support them, to alert the public to potential dangers from crooks and other types of wrongdoing. There will be times when newspapers feel that they must settle although they believe that they have been right—and there have been examples that have shown them to be right.
My prejudice is to try to avoid laws that apply specifically to journalists or to newspapers. The law should apply generally. One may sometimes want to give a newspaper a public interest defence, but one should not try to introduce a "corrupt practices for journalists" Bill that does not apply to private detectives or commercial concerns, or a "right to privacy" Bill that applies only to what journalists do and not to what private detectives do, or a "right to reply" Bill that applies specifically to journalists—although I am slightly dubious about my interpretation of part of the Defamation Bill in another place, which may appear to take from judges a power that was probably implicit in the draft Bill. One should not impose on newspapers the duty of balance that is applied to broadcasters.
I do not say that journalists and editors should not have to face criticism. We have unlimited privilege in the Chamber. Members of Parliament are limited in what they say and do by the opinion of those around them—social pressure, exposure, argument, criticism, debate—rather than by Mr. Deputy Speaker putting his hand up and saying, "You are not allowed to say that, because it is illegal." Editors are like Back Benchers, but obviously with greater access to the media.
There is room for argument, debate and criticism. We need to ask whether broadcasters should consider more often what the press do. I am not saying that most of what the press do or say is wrong. Considering that a newspaper may contain 700,000 words in a day or a week, it is surprising how few facts newspapers get wrong. I find it surprising how seldom they make unfair comment in a general sense, let alone unfair comment in a legal sense.
There are times, however, when newspapers slip into bad habits. They must make judgments.
Let me take some examples that did not go to law. I was once the subject of allegations by broadcasters and the press that I was involved in drug smuggling. I thought

that that was laughable, but they did not at the time. It was only when Private Eye obtained the information that it turned out that a hoaxer had got half the British press staking out a motel in Basingstoke for a week or two, waiting for me to come along with the money to swap for the drugs.
More recently, there was a time when some of the media had seriously considered that there was a story that I had accepted free flights in America from a commercial concern, and I had to say that the only time I remembered accepting a free flight was in Richard Branson's helicopter getting away from Silverstone when there was a traffic jam after the British grand prix.
Stories can grow up and develop a momentum of their own. In 1989, a fair part of the press had become involved in swallowing a story about me that, if they had bothered to check, they would have known to be untrue.
In general, people should not sue, and we should continue to emphasise that, but costs are a factor. Having acknowledged that the press may be intimidated by BCCI or Robert Maxwell, one must consider the impact that their resources can have on other people. If a newspaper group budgets to spend £200,000 or £1 million a year in legal costs and damages in libel cases, or if it has taken out libel insurance above a certain level, does that create a lack of balance?
Does that not start to deal with the present tendency to ask why, if personal injury compensation is at a certain level, someone's reputation is worth more or less? The answer is that most people are able to sue on personal injury and are not confronted with the probability of incurring the massive costs of the insurance company or the person defending the claim.
In libel cases, even if the plaintiff wins, wounded pride or some other feeling—assuming that excessive damages are not awarded by the jury—may lead to an appeal, which would reach the Court of Appeal a year later. If that succeeds—it may be on the judge's summing-up or some other issue—the plaintiff must go to the High Court again, with not the slightest prospect of obtaining anything extra, and the possibility of having to carry the costs for others.
When the House considers the Defamation Bill, we should try to discover whether there is some way to cap the costs of a successful private plaintiff, even if, on a point of law, for some reason a defendant wants to go off and establish some other precedent.
The last subject that I shall mention is slightly beside the main subject of the debate. That is what I call printmail.
At the moment, if someone thought that they knew something about me, and came to me and said, "Unless you give me £20,000 I shall tell a newspaper," I could take that person to the police, and they would probably be charged with blackmail; and, regardless of whether they were convicted, I would retain my anonymity.
However, suppose that a person cuts out the middle stage and answers the type of advertisement that one reads in some newspapers saying, "If you have any information about a Member of Parliament, please ring 0171–782" and so on, that person cuts out the blackmail stage and proceeds straight to publication. If the journalists pay £20,000, rather than the victim paying £20,000, the position is different. I have no answer to that, but it needs open debate. I say to the Minister and to the House, we should try to find out what is going on.
I recommend to the newspaper proprietors or the Press Complaints Commission or one of the media studies units in universities, before the Defamation Bill reaches the House, to try to conduct a study—I hope that the newspaper proprietors and editors will help—to discover how many complaints they receive in a specified time, how many are resolved, how many go to court, and how much they spend on libel insurance.
Libel is usually avoidable. If newspapers adopt a system of instantly putting right things that are wrong, or clearing up ambiguities that should not have got through the editorial process, the costs to newspapers will fall, the number of times that people have their reputation damaged will drop, and newspapers will be left free to say what they like that is true or privileged or a matter of fair comment, whether in a popular or a legal sense.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I am a practitioner in defamation at the Bar, and therefore have an interest in the subject under discussion.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on introducing the debate, which has been most valuable. He has come up with a number of interesting and thoughtful ideas, which I hope will be developed when we debate the Defamation Bill when it arrives from another place. There are good things about the Bill—but a number of things need careful attention. I am sure that the Bill is getting that attention in the other place, but I hope that, when it comes into this place, we will be able to make further improvements to it.
I corroborate what my hon. Friend has said about what most libel complainants want. In my 20 years' experience at the Bar, I have found that most people do not want huge damages in a year's time or in two years' time—they want a speedy apology and correction, preferably in the next day's paper. My hon. Friend is quite right to draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that people do not necessarily want money but a quick solution.
I draw hon. Members's attention to an anomaly: newspaper defendants, predominantly large corporations, have a tremendous advantage over private litigants. Hon. Members know that legal aid is not available for defamation cases—nor should it be, as the Government spend quite enough money on legal aid on other matters. The costs and the damages that newspapers pay are allowable against corporation tax, which gives them an inbuilt financial advantage over private litigants. However, a number of private litigants are supported by trade associations, trade unions and other such organisations. There is not always an imbalance. Trade unions do not have the same tax advantages as newspapers.
The cost of libel actions is exaggerated by newspapers because they want to discourage people from bringing libel actions against them. I refer to the libel case in which my hon. Friend was most successful before Christmas, and I congratulate him on that result.
After a high-profile case, newspapers like to say that the cost of the action was X, but they add on lots of noughts. By and large, the figures are highly inaccurate—

they are plucked out of the air—and designed to deter people from bringing libel complaints against big corporations. That ought to be looked at. Greater accuracy by newspapers—not only in what they print in the first place, but in the way in which they report the size of costs in actions—should be encouraged.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The main coverage of the result of my case contained the spurious accusation that someone who is now working in central office is the person that I had taken the action against. It seems to me that cases run for a week, the newspapers ignore them, and then print inaccuracies. That strikes me as rather odd.

Mr. Garnier: A lot of things are odd about libel actions—and that is obviously one of them. My hon. Friend was successful in his case, and greater currency should be given to his success and to the repair of his reputation as a consequence.
As I was saying, costs in libel actions are no greater than they would be in any big High Court litigation, such as a personal injury action. However, the difference is that legal aid does not cover defamation law, but insurance companies or legal aid cover most personal injury actions. The public or the individual are not made aware of the cost of litigation, but it has to be paid for one way or the other.
I have already mentioned the Defamation Bill—which is currently before the other House—but now is not the time to discuss it in detail. However, under the summary jurisdiction of the Bill, there is a proposed limit of £10,000 for damages when the judge alone hears a case in particular circumstances. I believe that, to most newspapers, £10,000 is petty cash. Perhaps we should consider increasing that figure to something more significant. I appreciate that damages are there to compensate and not to punish, but they must be of such a size that the newspaper is compensating—and knows that it is compensating—and not simply adjusting its petty cash book.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to participate in the debate. I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend and I have said, and will bear it in mind when we deal with the Defamation Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Jonathan Evans): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on securing a debate on what I believe to be an important subject. I am particularly grateful to him for his timing, because earlier this month the Government introduced a Bill that brings forward reforms to defamation law and procedure that are designed to meet some of the concerns that he has expressed.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the balanced and well-argued way in which he dealt with the issues he raised. I also express my gratitude to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), whose views have to be seen within the context of his great personal expertise and reputation in defamation law.
It is widely believed that the costs of defamation proceedings are disproportionately high. Despite many attempts over the years to put things right, there is an


undoubted need to make further improvements in all civil proceedings, especially in proceedings for defamation. It must be significant that, when the outcome of a libel claim is reported, the estimated cost to the parties is almost always featured as prominently as—if not more prominently than—the result of the case.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough gave us an insight into why that might be so. Even allowing for that, where a claim has succeeded, the amount of costs which it is estimated the loser will have to pay not infrequently exceeds the amount of damages that were awarded against him. In other words, the loser's financial position may be precarious simply as a result of the expense of the proceedings.

Mr. Denis MacShane: As a former journalist who has been both a defendant and a litigant in libel cases, I welcome the Defamation Bill, which is long overdue. Geoffrey Robertson QC wrote a book some 10 years ago along the lines of the ideas that the Government are putting forward. With all due respect to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), I lost the profits on one book because the publisher left me to defend a libel case that I thought was worth defending.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) urged me not to defend the case, and I thought that he was being quite pusillanimous, but he proved to be right. Another case, in which I was the defendant, dragged on for five years. I was being protected by a trade union, a point that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough made. It went on for five years, we got to the court, we blinked, and each side was left with about £20,000 in costs.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was making an intervention—it is a long intervention.

Mr. Evans: I was aware that my hon. Friends the learned Member for Harborough and the Member for Eltham were speaking from personal experience. Although I had noted that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) was present for the debate, I was unaware of his personal experience in this area. As I develop my response, the hon. Gentleman will be able to see that the Government are proposing in the Defamation Bill some measures that will be, in my judgment, helpful. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman contains himself for a moment, I will be able to outline those measures.
In the context of the cost of proceedings, we are talking not only about rich, large companies which can absorb expenses, but, as the hon. Member for Rotherham has said, about ordinary people who can face ruin as a result of court costs. There must be times when people who have been defamed—perhaps very seriously—choose not to take any steps to restore their reputations, because they are not willing to run the risk of losing not just the case, but everything they have. That is clearly wrong.
The Government examined the current issues and complaints relating to the law of defamation and found that there were many justified criticisms—particularly concerning the way in which the law of defamation operates in practice. There has been a series of reforming measures, the first of which was to give the Court of Appeal power to substitute its own award when it considers that an amount awarded by a jury is either excessive or inadequate.
Before that power was conferred, the court's powers of review were inadequate. If the jury awarded an unreasonable amount, the court could set aside that award, but it could not substitute a reasonable sum unless both parties were content for the court to do so. It could also order a retrial, but we have heard during the debate that that is particularly unhelpful: if the first trial is expensive, it is clear that a second trial would be doubly so.
The existence, and the court's exercise, of that power goes much further than eliminating the cost of an unnecessary second trial when an appeal is allowed. Its effect will be that fewer cases go to appeal. Judges directing juries refer to awards which have been approved or made in earlier cases by the Court of Appeal. A corpus of such awards will provide guidance, which should enable judges to help juries by indicating what level of award might be in proportion to the wrong inflicted by the libel or slander. More of those cases are now coming forward.
Another justified criticism was that the rules and practice for pleadings in defamation cases are unnecessarily complex, adding to the difficulty and the cost of preparing and conducting litigation. Therefore, the Lord Chancellor invited the Supreme Court procedure committee to review the rules relating to pleadings in actions for libel and slander, with a view to proposing changes for the purpose of reducing the complexity of the procedure without having an adverse effect on the interests of justice. The committee established a working group under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Neill, and its report and recommendations were published in 1991.
Some of those recommendations have already been implemented through changes in the rules of court, and others are included in the Defamation Bill. This evening, I shall refer to two changes which are designed to provide swift and less costly disposal of defamation claims.
In those cases where the defendant concedes that he has published a defamatory statement which is not true, he will be able to offer to make amends for the wrong that has been done to the plaintiff. If the offer is accepted, there will be no need for a trial. The parties will negotiate the exact form which the amends should take and, if they cannot agree on the details, they may apply to the judge. He will assess what money compensation, if any, should be paid and settle the terms of a suitable correction and apology by the defendant.
The judge will assess the compensation using the same principles as assessment of damages for defamation, taking account of the other steps which the defendant has taken—or will take—to make amends, as well as any aggravating features. There will be no fixed upper limit on the amount that can be awarded.
As we heard during the debate, the court will also have powers of summary disposal similar to those which are available already in all civil claims other than defamation. However, in defamation cases, the court will always consider at an early stage whether the case is suitable for summary disposal. The judge will consider whether the claim has any realistic prospect of success and, if it has not, he may dismiss it. He will consider whether any defence has been put forward that has a realistic prospect of success. If not—and there is no other special reason why there should be a trial—he may grant summary relief if he considers that the relief which he has power to grant will compensate the plaintiff adequately for the wrong suffered.
The plaintiff can ask the judge to grant summary relief. That relief may include damages of up to £10,000, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough said, but no more. Again, the parties may negotiate a suitable correction and apology which the defendant will publish, but, if they cannot do so, the judge will order publication of an approved summary of his judgment.
The problem of excessive and disproportionate legal costs is not limited to defamation proceedings. The Lord Chancellor's Department is well aware that such costs can apply across a wide range of civil litigation. Against that background, Lord Woolf is presently undertaking a review of civil justice. He has advanced a raft of new proposals in order to ensure that there is swifter access to

justice in future. That will be of assistance not only in the area which is the focus of the debate this evening, but across a wide range of civil justice, as I have said.
Finally, I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham for bringing this important issue before the House. The Defamation Bill is presently in the other place, and, after consideration, it will come to the House. My hon. Friend has drawn attention, at an early stage and at an appropriate time in view of the fact that the Bill was published only a month or so ago, to the important issues which the House must consider in due course when the legislation comes before it. In that regard, I am deeply grateful to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eight o'clock.